Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Community Care

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities have already produced community care plans and assessment procedures for an individual's needs for community care services.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): All local authorities are required to produce plans for care in the community by April next year and to establish assessment procedures for community care services by April 1993. Many authorities have already moved ahead.

Mr. Arnold: Has my hon. Friend noted that Kent county council was ready to implement its community care arrangements on 1 April this year and has introduced a series of arrangements that will give a far better service to its customers? Can my hon. Friend comment on the considerable increase in resources being put into social services by Kent?

Mrs. Bottomley: Kent has been one of the front runners in the development of care in the community and its care management is a model to many. I visited Kent last year to discuss its work. I can confirm the increase in resources. Its spending on personal social services has risen from £24·4 million in 1978–79 to £99·1 million in 1990–91—a real-terms increase of 61 per cent.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that it is necessary to take into account the views of disabled people if community care is to be effective, yet the Government have acknowledged that they are dropping the advocacy parts of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and sections 1, 2 and 3? That is damaging to community care and to disabled people.

Mrs. Bottomley: The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act predates the care in the community policies. Local authorities are already hard pressed to maintain the timetable for full implementation, but giving proper attention to the user of the service and the carer is a fundamental principle of care in the community. We have made it clear that we will review the formal implementation of those sections once care in the community is properly established.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Should not we be talking more about quality care packages than community care

packages? We are dealing with the most vulnerable groups in our society—the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. Will my hon. Friend look at the developments that are taking place in Macclesfield? I refer particularly to Hollins park, which is a progressive partnership between the health authority and community health services. That is a private organisation dealing with the provision of beds in a nursing home for the elderly mentally infirm. Could not that be translated to many other areas?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend, who has always been a champion of, and a great expert in, these matters. There are many examples throughout Britain of innovative practical schemes offering support to the frail and vulnerable. I was in my hon. Friend's part of the world only recently to see a pioneering scheme combining district nurses and day care workers from the social services to offer a practical alternative to residential care. I shall certainly look more carefully at the details of the scheme that my hon. Friend outlined.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that if the plans are to serve the needs of the individual, they will have to involve the voluntary sector? Is the hon. Lady aware of a recent survey of the voluntary sector in which almost half of the respondents said that they had no involvement or an unsatisfactory level of involvement in the planning of community care services? On what date did she issue a letter or a circular to the local authorities making it clear that if those plans are to work they must involve the voluntary sector?

Mrs. Bottomley: The voluntary sector has pioneered many excellent services that are particularly responsive to the needs of users and carers. Only two weeks ago, we announced funding of £25,000 for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to help voluntary organisa-tions prepare for the contracting procedures. We have regular meetings with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and many others and we shall certainly be asking whether it has any further concerns at our next meeting, next month. We have made it clear throughout that we in the Conservative party believe in a mixed economy of care using the voluntary and private sectors. We are not committed to the monolithic provision of services by local authorities.

Bradford Hospital Trust

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed standards of service envisaged by the hospital trust for Bradford.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The standards of service which national health service providers, including trusts, are expected to meet are defined in their contracts with purchasing health authorities.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that the sad story of the Bradford trust so far includes a freeze on the recruitment of nurses, which has meant that newly qualified nurses have been sacked and that wards 5 and 6 of Bierley Hall hospital have been closed or will be closed despite a refurbishment of £100,000? That scandalous waste of resources also includes the closure of the baby unit at St. Lukes. Does the Minister recall that during the


Gulf war, the Secretary of State said that as much money as necessary would be made available for the casualties of that war? Why does he not provide money for the casualties of the NHS trusts and ensure that patient care is improved, rather than squandering it on antidemocratic, anti-NHS trusts such as that in Bradford?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asks for more money and I am pleased to confirm that the Bradford trust has been granted the largest external financing limit of any trust in the NHS. The capital allocation to the Bradford trust will provide for the completion of phase 1(a) at a cost of £23 million in 1993, the completion of phase 1(b) at a cost of £30 million in 1997 and the completion of that entire project, costing a further £11 million, before the end of the decade. In addition, a £44 million redevelopment programme for the Bradford royal infirmary has been planned. All that is equivalent to nearly £110 million capital investment in Bradford's hospitals in this decade. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that, since 1 April, 57 hospitals and other units, including those in Bradford, have become NHS trusts? Quality of service and patient care is on the agenda. How can that show that we are in the wrong direction? I am grateful that Oldham and Rochdale have elected for NHS trust status.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. The trusts present the opportunity for the management and the staff of units to use the resources available to them to the best possible advantage of the patient. The Labour party uses the rhetoric of the opportunity society, but it uses every occasion to deny those seeking such opportunities the means to take advantage of them.

Mr. Madden: Why have all the Government's promises about the benefits of the NHS trust in Bradford gone so sour? The reality is that, this year, there have been cuts of £5 million and swingeing cuts have been planned for the next two years with a deterioration in the quality of patient care. Why are the Government not injecting the necessary funding now to avoid those cuts taking place? Why are they not defending the NHS in Bradford?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman seems unable to welcome the investment of £108 million in the capital provision for health in his constituency in this decade, but perhaps he will find it easier to welcome the fact that waiting lists in his constituency have been cut by 8 per cent. in the latest year for which figures are available and that the total number of people who have been waiting for more than a year has been cut by 37 per cent.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In veiw of the misleading nature of that answer, I reserve the right to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Northwick Park Hospital

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to reduce waiting lists and other administrative delays at Northwick Park hospital.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I understand that the main health authorities served by Northwick Park hospital have all placed contracts specifying that those waiting longest should receive priority for treatment.

Mr. Dykes: Although this is obviously a matter for the hospital management and the regional health authority, will my hon. Friend's Department look into this matter and keep an eye on things, because the sombre reality is that, other than those needing acute emergency operations or planned treatment, no one was admitted in the first quarter of the year to Northwick Park hospital? That situation is extremely unsatisfactory. Will my hon. Friend discuss with the hospital and the RHA the possibility of a timed admission system such as that which has already been introduced by the South Western regional health authority?

Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that my hon. Friend will find that the clear priority of tackling long waiting lists throughout the NHS translates into action on behalf of his constituents. Under the new contracting arrangements, it is possible to specify waiting times as one of the quality conditions. I understand that that is precisely what is happening in the hospital to which my hon. Friend referred. North West Thames health authority has made it clear that no patient should have to wait longer than two years for treatment. That will apply to patients who do not have clear clinical priority. My hon. Friend mentioned South Western regional health authority moving to timed admissions instead of waiting lists. We hope that many other local health authorities will follow that example.

General Practitioners

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fund-holding general practitioners have not yet completed their contract negotiations in order to implement the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): Fund-holding general practitioners are free to make contracts for the hospital services covered by the fund in the way that they judge best for their patients. The indications are that most fund holders have placed contracts in advance for the greater part of the hospital services necessary for their patients and will arrange other contracts on an individual basis as their patients need them.

Mr. Eastham: But are not some general practitioners in a state of chaos, with hundreds of contracts still not completed? That can be put down to the hospitals that are not in a position to carry out adequate pricing and do not have the necessary additional staff or computer facilities, with consequent further delays for people waiting to go into hospital.

Mr. Waldegrave: The answer is no, Sir. In the hon. Gentleman's region, about 90 per cent. of the contracts have been placed in advance. It is sensible to have 10 per cent. to follow patients who cannot be predicted in advance.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in evidence recently given to the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Nichol, the chief executive of the national health service management executive, stated that budget holding, research and the success of the project should not be carried out from the centre but that it should be left to each region to undertake its own analysis? Is not that an absurd way to proceed? Whatever the merits or demerits,


we need an assessment that is objective and will be accepted by all parties. If it is left to each region, it will be useless.

Mr. Waldegrave: No, I think that the regional arms of the NHS are the right people to deal with that. My hon. Friends regularly, and rightly, press me to stop Whitehall's tendency to centralisation. It is those hon. Members with whom I have most sympathy.

Mrs. Mahon: Where contracts have been completed, will the Minister comment on the case of the woman who was referred to Guy's hospital for sterilisation, but then found that her authority would not pay for it although her GP had referred her? Will that be a regular occurrence? Will the Minister say where patient choice comes in, if the GP decides where operations are carried out?

Mr. Waldegrave: That case did not involve GP fund holders, but I am happy to comment on it. The hon. Lady has not followed the story through. It transpired that the district involved had for many years not provided sterilisation of that kind. The present system has brought and will rightly bring that into the open, which enables my hon. Friend the Minister of State to remind the district that in such matters there is a central guideline that that service should be available throughout the kingdom.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Are not GP fund-holding practices a successful and valuable attempt to spread choice and opportunity not only to patients, but to the doctors who administer the services? Does my right hon. Friend see any evidence of a desire to spread choice and opportunity for either patients or doctors in the rehashed Labour policy unveiled by the Labour party this morning?

Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. An increasing number, although I think that they are a minority, of the GPs who supported the Opposition now take my hon. Friend's view. For example, Dr. David Thomé, who used to appear in party political broadcasts on behalf of the Labour party, has now become a GP fund holder and strongly supports the scheme. In the rather weasel words of today's policy document—I am happy to say that the Opposition have watered it down a little more —we are told:
We would expect a progressive withdrawal".
"Expect" is a good word. If expectations are confounded —as they will be—I hope that the Opposition will endorse the scheme as strongly as my hon. Friend does.

Ms. Harman: The Secretary of State said that 10 per cent. should be set aside to make it possible for patients to get treatment outside contracts placed by districts or GPs. Is he aware that no district health authority has set aside 10 per cent., that most have set aside only 2 per cent. to provide for extracontractual referrals and that some have provided only 1 per cent. or even less? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to guarantee choice for patients through a system under which so much of the money is tied up in contracts and so little set aside for extracontractual referrals?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am afraid that the hon. Lady could not have been listening to our discussions. We were talking about GP fund-holders, in respect of whom the much smaller sum involved probably makes it reasonable—in

the view of most GPs—for the proportion to be larger than is necessary at district level. That is the answer to the hon. Lady's question.

Primary Health Care

Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what future he envisages for primary health care in Britain.

Mr. Waldegrave: Some of the most exciting develop-ments in the national health service are occurring in primary health care. On top of the achievements already being secured through the new contracts for GPs and dentists, there are new opportunities for building on the excellent examples of team-working between GPs, nurses and other health care professionals and to achieve closer working with the hospital services. The aim is to improve the range of high-quality, cost-effective services provided to patients in the primary care setting.

Mr. Davies: Have not the Government's new contracts for GPs in the national health service brought about an unprecedented and dramatic increase in the number of child immunisations and in the amount of cervical screening, mammography and other preventive procedures being delivered in the NHS? Is not it a fact that some of the Opposition Members present in the House opposed the new contract all along and have still not had the grace to admit how wrong they were?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The contract has produced, and is producing, major benefits for patients and it seems to me uncharacteristically ungracious of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) not to acknowledge that, on this point at least, he was wrong.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in that part of the national health service and in all others, the assessment of financial performance is increasingly viewed as more important than the successful treatment of patients? Does he also accept that, unless that changes, we shall see the inexorable rise of the accountant, who will be regarded as far more important to the NHS than those in the medically related professions?

Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly refute that. It is irresponsible to say that it is not part of the duty of those of us charged with spending public funds to ensure that they are spent for the best benefit of patients or others for whose benefit the funds were designated by Parliament. In its extraordinary rehashed document, published today, the Labour party has gone a step further. It does not care for a health care market but wants a medical market, so it is coming along nicely.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Ground: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with NHS trusts since 1 April.

Mr. Waldegrave: A total of 57 hospitals and other units became fully operational NHS trusts on 1 April. A further 130 hospitals and units have expressed an interest in becoming trusts by April 1992.

Mr. Ground: Does my right hon. Friend agree that threats to the career prospects of national health service managers who recommend trust status for their hospitals represent an unacceptable threat to the independence of those managers and should be condemned whenever they are made? Does my right hon. Friend have an example of such threats in the form of a letter written to the manager of the Walsgrave hospital in Coventry by two Labour Members?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry to say that such a letter was written. I am happy to say that, when I drew it to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, he immediately repudiated the views of the two Coventry Members concerned. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has, however, made similar threats himself. He owes the House an endorsement of the repudiation of the views of the hon. Members concerned and the withdrawal of his own threats, made last year, about the renewal of contracts after an election.

Mr. Nellist: If the Secretary of State wishes to make light of the matter, let me tell him that this is just one example of how deep anger already runs in Coventry among thousands of people who are not prepared to allow the hospital to be taken, over their heads, on the first step towards privatisation and got rid of. It is a publicly funded hospital, to provide whose equipment not a single family in Coventry has not bought a raffle ticket in the past 10 years.
If the concept of dismissal worries the Secretary of State so much, may I make him on offer? I will withdraw that word, and instead suggest to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, after the general election, we require everyone who runs a hospital in Britain to stand for election, so that the staff, the patients and the people of Coventry can sack him instead.

Mr. Waldegrave: The idea of elected brain surgeons is engaging.
I do not take the matter at all lightly; nor does the Leader of the Opposition, who, on the same day that I wrote to him, replied:
I regard all such threats to be as meaningless as they are objectionable.
Let me draw the attention of the hon. Member for Livingston to his own threat, when he warned managers that they should remember that their contracts would not be up for renewal until after the next general election.

Mr. Hayes: Never mind what the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) says, although his threats are bad enough. It is a different matter when the Opposition health spokesman threatens not to renew the contracts of managers who assist the Government's proposals.
Does my right hon. Friend agree with an editorial in the Health Service Journal, which is not exactly a hotbed of high Toryism? Let me paraphrase it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase it.

Mr. Hayes: I will, Mr. Speaker. I would never quote directly. [Interruption.] I am going to paraphrase the article. Hon. Members are not listening.
This is outrageous interference in NHS management".

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like a quotation to me.

Mr. Waldegrave: The bellowing from below the Gangway represents the only support that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is receiving from his own side; he has been repudiated by his leaders. It is evidence of the weakness of Opposition Members' position. This is a serious matter. To threaten any public servants in such a way is no part of our traditions and should be repudiated by the House.

Mr. Beggs: When a local community is entirely opposed to a health board's proposals to downgrade the status of a local hospital, will that hospital still have the right to seek trust status?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. There is no reason why such a hospital should not make an application for trust status. It would be considered alongside all the other applications, according to the published criteria, but hospitals have a perfect right to seek such status.

Mr. John Greenway: Would not it be helpful if patients in any district hospital could be asked a question about the future of that hospital, free from the political interference by the Labour party and its attempts to dissuade them by perpetrating myths about my right hon. Friend's reforms? No hospital is being asked to opt out of the NHS. What is on the agenda is the prospect of more local control and accountability in the health service for the better delivery of patient care.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. A general practitioner was quoted in The Guardian—not usually a supporter of my party—as saying that the current anger of people in the streets was directed at those who had scared them with stories about what the reforms meant, all of which have now turned out to be false.

Mr. Robin Cook: I fully associate myself with the repudiation by the leader of my party of the remarks made in relation to that hospital—

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Do not be so nasty to the Coventry Members.

Mr. Cook: There was nothing nasty about the repudiation and I fully associate myself with it. I am also delighted to take this opportunity to reassure all national health service managers that there will be no problem over renewing the contracts of those managers who serve the next Labour Government as loyally as they have served this Government.
However, the Secretary of State's claims about the accountability of these trusts would be more credible had he not stuffed their boards with people who know little about the national health service and who represent no one in the local community. How does he justify the fact that he has appointed a majority of business men to those trusts and that the largest business interest is property development? Although managers will be safe from action by us after the next election, does the Secretary of State accept that we shall replace those people who were appointed as members of trust boards and health authorities with people who live in the area, who use the health service and who are committed to restoring it as a public service?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think I hear the hon. Gentleman repudiating his own words, which it is right that he should do. He threatened managers' contracts. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows that he said that. It was reported at the time—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"]—His hon. Friends ask what is wrong with that. That is the voice of the true Labour party. The hon. Gentleman also criticises the appointment of people with business experience to hospital management boards. This great public service can well use the experience of managers of other large organisations in order to deploy most effectively the skills of NHS professionals.

South West RHA

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has yet received any proposals from the South West regional health authority for amalgamation of any district health authorities.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: No, Sir. We do not expect regional health authorities to submit formal proposals—[Interruption.]—for amalgamation of health authorities unless extensive local consultations—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have a stop to this pointing across the Chamber.

Mrs. Bottomley: No, Sir. We do not expect regional health authorities to submit formal proposals for amalgamation of health authorities unless extensive local consultations have shown that the proposals command broad local support.

Mr. Speller: When my hon. Friend considers the needs of the south-west, particularly those in the county of Devon, will she bear in mind the fact that it has four area health authorities, that by and large people in the county of Devon think of themselves as Devonians and that it may be logical to consider replacing the four authorities with one?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. Another advantage would be to have coterminosity with social services departments. That, with the implementation of community care, might make a great deal of sense. Ministers, however, will be influenced by the extent to which such proposals command local support and by the extent to which they are seen as improving health care and services to local residents.

"Look after your Heart" Campaign

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the "Look after your Heart" campaign.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: "Look after your Heart" is a major national programme launched in 1987 to reduce death and illness in England from coronary heart disease. All right hon. and hon. Members with English constituencies have received copies of the programme's strategy for 1990 to 1995.

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that in England we cut the level of circulatory disease by 24 per cent. between 1980 and 1988, compared with the World Health Organisation's target of 15 per cent. for the year 2000? Has my hon. Friend seen the new World Health

Organisation paper on heart disease relating to diet and nutrition and does she believe that its recommendations will be included in the strategy for the next five years?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to cite the great reduction in coronary heart disease during the 1980s. Ministers are pleased, but are by no means satisfied. My hon. Friend knows that renewal of the "Look after your Heart" campaign envisages a further 25 per cent. reduction in heart disease by the end of the century.

St. Paul's Eye Hospital, Liverpool

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from community health councils about the closing of St. Paul's eye hospital, Liverpool.

Mr. Dorrell: The Liverpool Central and Southern community health council has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State objecting to the proposal.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware that the objections made by the community health council reflect the opinion of patients, staff and the wider public in Liverpool and throughout the region about the proposals to close St. Paul's eye hospital? As a patient there for nine years suffering from glaucoma, I suggest that I know more about the hospital than does the Minister or those placed in areas such as Liverpool to carry out Tory policy in the health service. Will the Minister reflect on the Government's attitude that patient care is of prime importance and take into account as soon as possible the views of patients and community health councils on the proposed closure of St. Paul's hospital?

Mr. Dorrell: We certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that patient care is the principal concern. The hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal is currently with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has not yet taken a decision. Of course, my right hon. Friend will take account of the views of Liverpool Central and Southern CHC. He will also take account of the views of Liverpool Eastern CHC, which has not objected to the proposal. He will also take it into account that the effect of the proposal would be to move the majority of ophthalmic provision in the city of Liverpool out of a small and very old hospital into a modern hospital that was opened in 1978. That factor must be taken into account in assessing the issue which the hon. Gentleman rightly places at the top of the agenda—the quality of patient care.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister accept that it is precisely because St. Paul's is a small hospital which has served the needs of the people of Liverpool for many generations that the people are so hostile to the idea of its being absorbed into a large hospital, the Royal in my constituency? Will he reconsider the reply that he gave on 12 March when he declined to see a delegation from the CHC led by the rector of Liverpool parish? Will he now see that delegation and consider especially the provision of ophthalmic beds for children in the heart of the community?

Mr. Dorrell: Liverpool Eastern CHC took up the question of the provision of ophthalmic beds for children and was satisified by the assurances that it received from the district health authority. I have already given an


undertaking that we shall, of course, look at all sides of the argument before reaching a decision, but, in assessing the merits of the argument that it is a small hospital, much loved by the local community, we must also remember the clinical benefits that come from a broader base of clinical expertise within the same hospital. Those are balancing arguments and their merits still have to be assessed.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the draft Budget produced by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) there is no provision to increase expenditure on the health service? Does not that suggest that the Opposition's concern over the closure of the hosptial is synthetic indignation which the Labour party is unable to fund?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, as we consider the provision in Liverpool, Bradford and every other locality in the country, we must test the claims of the Opposition that they would be able to do better against their inability to extract from the dour Scotsman from Glasgow the promise to spend any more money on the health service.

Ward Closures

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many wards closed in England each week since 1 February.

Mr. Waldegrave: We do not routinely collect this information centrally, since ward and bed numbers are not a good indicator of levels of service in the national health service. However, the hon. Member will be glad to know that since 1979 there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated by the national health service.

Mr. Wray: Will the Minister explain why there are 50,000 people on the waiting list in Wales and 800,000 in other parts of England? Will he also explain under what legislation, since the Tory National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, Medway health authority is trying to enter into a package deal with a centre hopitalière in France? Does the Minister agree with that package deal?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure that waiting lists are the strongest line for the hon. Gentleman to pursue, as the numbers on those lists increased by 48 per cent. under Labour, whereas they have declined under the Conservatives. The Medway deal that the hon. Gentleman mentioned has been discussed in the House. If it is within the law—we shall have to check whether it is within the vires of the local health authority—and it is in the best interests of patients, I shall have no reason to interfere with it.

Mr. Rowe: How many wards have been closed as a result of the introduction of non-invasive surgical techniques, day-care operations and the decanting of large numbers of patients into much more satisfactory care in the community? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in the spirit of the European Community that if Medway health authority can secure a better deal for its patients by using European facilities, it is all to its credit that it should do so?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, I agree with my hon. Friend, subject to the point that I made earlier. My hon. Friend is perfectly right that in the past 10 years there

has been an enormous increase in day surgery, as knowledge of its proper use has increased. In most other advanced countries, such as France and Germany, there has been a similar increase in the number of patients treated, alongside a drop in the total number of beds.

Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that in Bradford and Leeds some wards and beds are still being held for Gulf crisis casualties? What extra steps will his Department take to ensure that clearance of the backlog of operations resulting from the Gulf crisis is speeded up?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am astonished at what the hon. Gentleman says. It certainly should not be so and I shall have the position investigated urgently. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in practice the Gulf crisis had almost no impact—indeed, no impact at all—on the national health service. That being the case, there should be no excuses of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. As I said, I shall have the matter looked into.

Eye Tests

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to complete the review of charges for eye tests.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We commissioned NOP, an independent market research company, to carry out a survey on the proportion of adults who had a sight test in the first quarter of 1990. The results indicated that demand for sight tests was returning to normal, following an accepted initial drop after the introduction of charges in April 1989.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that good eyesight is a prerequisite for a proper quality of life in retirement, as well as being essential for safe driving? As there is growing evidence that a number of elderly people have not had their eyes tested since the introduction of charges two years ago, will my hon. Friend consider exempting all pensioners as a essential cost-effective preventive measure?

Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse my hon. Friend's point about the importance of sight tests. Of course, 35 to 40 per cent. of the population—including children, people on low incomes and people with clinical needs—are entitled to free tests. It is important that people should know their welfare entitlements. That is why we recently launched a major initiative to draw attention to the fact that certain groups of people are entitled to free sight tests.

Mr. Robin Cook: Has not the Minister seen the results of the survey carried out last week by The Economist which indicated that, in the two years since charges were introduced, 5 million fewer eye tests have been carried out than were carried out before the introduction of charges? Does not she grasp that if only I per cent. of those 5 million people go on to develop serious eye disorders, the cost to her Department will be far greater than the amount that is being saved by charging for eye tests? If she is in any real doubt about the figures, why have not she and her colleagues once approached optrometrists with a view to agreeing on how to measure the dramatic drop in the number of eye tests which is a direct result of Government policies?

Mrs. Bottomley: Our consumer survey, like those organised by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Consumers Association, makes it clear that the demand for sight tests has returned to the level that pertained through the 1980s which was established before the announcement of the introduction of charges. It is right that those who can do so should pay the modest charge for a sight test which is about the same as the cost of buying a packet of Polos each week.

Plymouth DHA

Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline the proposed arrangements for the funding of South East Cornwall and other overlap areas administered and funded by Plymouth district health authority; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dorrell: All district health authorities are now funded to purchase health care for their resident population. Arrangements for the operational manage-ment of health care facilities other than NHS trusts are a local matter.

Mr. Hicks: As it has been confirmed that Cornwall will be responsible for funding health care in the overlap area, will my hon. Friend assure me that decisions will be made quickly on the management of cottage hospitals and on the other functions that are currently provided by Plymouth and that that decision will not form part of any deal on the reorganisation of health authorities in Devon?

Mr. Dorrell: I confirm that this matter is completely separate from a possible reorganisation of health authorities in Devon. There is benefit in proceeding reasonably quickly to a conclusion, motivated by the recognition that under the reformed NHS the key is the responsibility that rests on Cornwall health authority to secure the best health care available for the people of Cornwall from the resources spent by the NHS in the county.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Sir Anthony Durant: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his four-point initiative to deal with the Kurds and Shi'ites, especially the safe haven proposals, which are important? Will he work hard with the agencies to improve aid to the Shi'ites and Kurds and push the United Nations to implement resolutions 678 and 688 so that the Kurds and Shi'ites can return in confidence to their towns and villages and thereby stop this appalling situation?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Hundreds of tonnes of aid have already been delivered, of which 220 tonnes have come from the United Kingdom. In addition to the three C130s already there, nine Chinook helicopters operating from Turkey will be fully operational

by the end of the week. The two special representatives of the secretary-general are in Iraq and by the end of the week 150 United Nations personnel will be in Iraq to oversee the relief effort. Urgent and intensive international discussions are continuing on a safe haven plan, which I and others believe is the only way forward. Indeed, I believe that it is rapidly gaining ground. Later today, I shall chair a further meeting of Ministers to take stock of aid needs.

Mr. Kinnock: May I strongly support the Prime Minister in the efforts being made to get aid to the wretched people who are fleeing from Saddam Hussein's forces? As the agonies of the Kurdish people continue, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether he shares my view that the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish people mean that the Iraqi dictator has a case to answer under articles 2 and 3 of the genocide convention of 1948? Will the Prime Minister refer the issue of genocide to the United Nations Security Council as a matter of urgency?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first words. I have asked for legal advice on the subject of genocide.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the strict budgetary controls of agricultural spending were effectively blow sky high last Monday when the Council of Ministers voted by 10 to two to go through the ceiling, will my right hon. Friend say what on earth we can do, or is agriculture entirely out of control? In congratulating him on Britain's being one of the two who voted against, may I ask whether he will tell the consumers and taxpayers of Britain whether we can take any action to hold on to the strict budgetary controls for which we fought so hard?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of keeping strict budgetary control on agriculture and on other items of the European Community budget. We have consistently stuck to that position and we shall continue to argue for it in the Agriculture Council and the other Councils of the Community.

Mr. Ashdown: Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's welcome but long-term plans for Kurdish sanctuary in Iraq, does not our present air superiority provide a means and United Nations resolution 688 provide the authority for action now to prevent continuing genocide against the Kurds in Iraq? Is not the only thing lacking for action the political will and international leadership? Why does he still seem reluctant to provide either?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the only comprehensive international plan before the international community is the one that I announced to the European Community on Monday this week. As I said to the House a few moments ago, urgent and intensive international discussions on the plan are continuing at this moment.

Mr. Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his safe haven policies. Will he build on them as soon as possible with our colleagues and partners in the Security Council to ensure that, under United Nations auspices, forces are sent to both the north and south of Iraq to establish at the earliest possible opportunity safe havens into which Saddam Hussein's armies will not be permitted to go?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to our colleagues in the United Nations and elsewhere that, if the relief effort is harassed or frustrated, in my judgment, under Security Council resolution 688, it is clearly the responsibility of the United Nations to protect both helpers and helped. If necessary, the United Nations would have to act on that responsibility and seek from its members whatever assistance, including military assistance, it might need.

Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wray: The Prime Minister will be in no doubt that the question on everybody's lips is about the disgraceful "Panorama" programme which made allegations that the Prime Minister used an accommodation address in Templar street in Lambeth to gain access to the electoral register, a seat on Lambeth council and thus win a seat at Westminster. Will he give an assurance that that accusation is untrue and what action is he about to take?

The Prime Minister: The qualification for standing for Lambeth council was to be resident within the area. "Panorama" was told on more than one occasion by the lady whose address they gave that I was living in the area, directly opposite her house, at the time and that that fully met the qualification requirements. I cannot explain to the hon. Gentleman why "Panorama" chose not to broadcast that fact.

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of his policies in bringing down inflation, interest rates and mortgage rates shows that the better way for Britain is the Conservative way to opportunity and that it is getting better and better as the months go by? Does he agree that that is why there is such disappointment on the Opposition Benches and such desperate calls for an early election?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. It is precisely because we were prepared to take tough action on inflation that it is now coming down fast and, as I forecast, interest rates are following it down. The economy will continue to improve in the months ahead and we will continue to extend opportunities by spreading wealth, ownership and choice. No other party in the country can offer that to the British people.

Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pike: Is not the Prime Minister concerned about the many thousands of struggling pensioners who get a pension increase and immediately lose income support and other transitional arrangements? Is not it time that he ended the practice of giving with one hand and immediately taking back with the other and started to give all pensioners a fair deal?

The Prime Minister: If that were the policy of the Opposition, any pretence that they might have had of public expenditure control would have gone.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the next decade will be the decade of opportunity for young people, but that one opportunity that the House and the country would rather they did not take is the opportunity to commit crime? Does he agree that in national Crime Prevention Week the one major objective that we should seek is for young people to be deterred from criminal activity?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. He will have noticed in particular the initiative on truancy taken this week.

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Patchett: Does the Prime Minister feel comfortable with his policies, given the criticism from within his party, both inside and outside the House, or is he merely a victim of an enemy within?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will find that there are millions and millions of people outside the House who support our policies and who will vote for them.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend make an important and clear statement today that the British Government's policy in support of the safety and security of Iraqi Kurds in Iraq is not support for Kurdish insurrection against successive Governments of Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran to form a separate state and that activity of that kind gives a spurious strength to the present Government of Iraq to take military action of a genocidal kind against Iraqi Kurds in Iraq?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear in the House on previous occasions that our concern in Iraq is to ensure that the Kurds are well treated, safe and protected from repression. That remains our policy.

Cyprus

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister, what discussions he has held with the Government of Turkey concerning their occupation of part of Cyprus.

The Prime Minister: I met the Turkish Prime Minister yesterday and the President of Cyprus last week. My discussion yesterday with the Turkish Prime Minister concentrated on the plight of the Kurds. I urged him to help the international efforts to get the Kurds down from the mountains into areas of Turkey and Iraq where they can receive food and medicine. The Turkish Prime Minister and I spoke briefly about Cyprus later in the day.

Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us what discussions he had with the Prime Minister of Turkey. He must be aware that the British Government are a guarantor of Cypriot independence and that the 1974 invasion of Cyprus by Turkey was condemned by the United Nations. Does not he think that the aim should be the withdrawal of foreign troops from Cyprus and the reunification of the island, with guarantees from all


communities to end the terrible time suffered by so many people through the division of the island by military intervention?

The Prime Minister: I made it entirely clear to the Turkish Prime Minister that we supported the efforts being made by the secretary-general and we hoped that he would make progress speedily towards a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will the Prime Minister confirm that Cyprus, a democratic member of the Commonwealth, is the only European country at present forcibly occupied by a foreign power? Does he agree that positive action is necessary to persuade Turkey that it is in its interest and in the interest of the regional stability of the eastern Mediterranean that the reunification of Cyprus as a stable and democratic country is implemented as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend and the Turkish Government are aware that that is our policy.

Engagements

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: Is the Prime Minister aware that the answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon will have appalled the whole nation? If a Prime Minister, above anyone, has not yet taken legal advice about the genocide convention, when Kurds are being murdered and tortured every day, it is a disgrace. Indeed, it is a sin that this matter has been allowed to go as far as it has. Will the Prime Minister take action today to instruct our representatives at the United Nations to raise the matter of genocide so that action— even military action—is taken against the butcher of Baghdad?

The Prime Minister: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks with care. It is wise to seek and await proper legal advice on such measures. If the matter is so self-evident, why did not the Leader of the Opposition raise it until yesterday and where has the shadow Foreign Secretary been for the past fortnight?

NEW MEMBER

The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:

Peter Gerald Hain Esq., for Neath.

School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given notice to you and to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It relates to the Government's conduct regarding the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill.
The Second Reading of the Bill took place on 27 November. It went into Standing Committee before Christmas and came out on 5 February—two and a half months ago. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Education and Science told the House:
The Bill contains the agreed policy of this Government". —[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 743.]
He said that two of the candidates for the Conservative leadership, including the successful candidate who is now the Prime Minister, were committed to the Bill. In Committee, Ministers pressed for an early conclusion of the Committee stage, telling us repeatedly that they had to have the Bill enacted and on the statute book by Easter. Since the Committee stage, however, instead of coming to the House for its Report stage, the Bill has disappeared into the black hole of indecision that now passes for Cabinet government amidst repeated press leaks that, despite the fact that the Bill was referred to as containing the agreed position of the Government and the personal commitment of the Prime Minister, the Government's policy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Straw: I shall come to it in a moment, Mr. Speaker.
I raise the point of order to complain about the conduct of Ministers in explaining away the considerable delay of the Bill. The reason is that the Government do not know whether to follow or to change the policy of the Bill. I realise that that is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. The matter for you is whether Ministers have been truthful in the explanations that they have offered to the House on the reasons for the delay.
It is well known that the Government are so short of business that we had an extra week's holiday at Christmas and a further week at Easter. Despite that, the Leader of the House has three times blamed a shortage of parliamentary time for the delay in bringing the Bill to the House, as has the Secretary of State in a letter to me— [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like this, but it is clear that Ministers, including the Leader of the House, have made statements on the reasons for the Bill's delay that are palpably untrue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a reflection upon Ministers and must be withdrawn.

Mr. Straw: I took advice from the Clerks—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not a Clerk. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw his remark?

Mr. Straw: I withdraw it.
I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker—and I also took advice on this from the Clerks—whether it is open to Ministers to

make statements to the House that palpably do not fit with the facts. It is known to hon. Members that there is no shortage of parliamentary time, but that is the only explanation that has been offered to the House. In those circumstances, hon. Members may well feel themselves to have been heavily misled by Ministers, and so may you, Mr. Speaker. Do you, Mr. Speaker, regard that conduct by Ministers as acceptable?

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
I think that the whole House enjoyed an extra week's holiday. I do not know why it was given or whether or not there was business to discuss. All that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said has nothing to do with me; it is a matter of dispute that he has with the Government. It is not an issue of order in the Chamber.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have not your predecessors and you, Mr. Speaker, consistently condemned abuse, whether by Back Benchers or Front Benchers, of the point of order procedure of the House to make purely political points that can properly be made in a censure motion or on a Supply day? Such points of order ought never to be countenanced by a Speaker, whether they come from a Front Bencher or a Back Bencher.

Mr. Speaker: Things of that sort are frequently said in the Chamber. In order to know whether a point of order is bogus or not, I have to hear it. I have already announced that I did not think that the subject was a matter for me.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Whether or not it was a point of order is clearly for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that there will be a statement on the matter tomorrow.

BILLS PRESENTED

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Peter Viggers presented a Bill to amend section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 so as to exclude members of the armed forces from relief for students in respect of the community charge: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

SMOKE DETECTORS

Mr. Conal Gregory, supported by Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Douglas French, Dame Janet Fookes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ian McCartney and Mr. Patrick Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the fitting of smoke detectors in new dwellings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April and to be printed [Bill 131.]

Forestry Commission

Mr. Martin Redmond: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the Forestry Commission from transferring any land without guaranteeing continuing public access to that land.
The Bill will guarantee the continuation of public accessibility to the land that is sold by the Forestry Commission.
Of the more than 2 million hectares of woodlands and forests in Britain, nearly half are owned by the Forestry Commission. It is my belief that the majority of the public wants the land owned by the nation and managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of the nation to remain accessible so that this generation and future generations can enjoy all the environmental benefits that forests, woodlands and moorlands can offer.
Regrettably, in 1981, the Conservative Government instructed the Forestry Commission to sell off large areas of its woodlands, forests and open lands to the private sector. That was a stupid and irresponsible policy, as the Forestry Commission land belongs to the nation and not to the private sector.
By March 1989, a total of 140,000 hectares had been sold off—an area bigger than the whole of Berkshire or of Fife. In June 1989, the Government announced a continuation of their policy and the commission was instructed to sell off another 100,000 hectares by the year 2000. Yet it was quite clear by 1989 that the warning given by the Ramblers Association about the problems resulting from selling the land was justified and the problems had arrived.
When the Forestry Commission sells land to the private buyer, it does nothing to ensure that the access hitherto enjoyed by the public is protected. By and large, private woodland owners are not keen to give the public the same freedom of access in their woods as the Forestry Commission. There no rational reason for that.
At no time has the commission said that public access is incompatible with efficient management of its woods and forest and the private woodland owners' association, the Timber Growers United Kingdom, appears to agree with that as it said recently:
One of the principal advantages of forestry is that it is a land use where access and recreation can be combined, often with little loss of timber production.
In one respect—fire prevention—the Commission has said that it is a positive benefit to have people walking in its forests, because when there is an outbreak of fire, it is more likely to be spotted, reported and extinguished before any really extensive damage occurs than it would be if it happened in a forest where walking is not allowed.
Nevertheless, private woodland owners are generally not access-friendly. As a result, access to land sold by the Forestry Commission has often been lost. Examples were given in a BBC "Country File" television programme on 10 March 1991 and others were quoted in the Observer.
In June 1989, the Secretary of State for Scotland stated that the Government were concerned and that careful

consideration would be given to the problem so that the public could continue to enjoy access. That careful consideration was not speedy. A further statement was not made until 17 months later, in November 1990. The Secretary of State for Scotland stated that the Forestry Commission would offer to enter into legal agreements with local authorities to provide for continuing public access to woodlands after sale. However, those legal agreements are to be subject to guidelines that have yet to be drawn up, and until they appear no agreements safeguarding access can be entered into.
It is noteworthy and depressing that a Forestry Commission spokesman was quoted in the Observer as saying that consultation on access agreement guidelines was likely to continue for several months. Meanwhile, land continues to be sold and public access continues to be lost.
To make matters even worse, the Forestry Commission is no longer supplying the Ornance Survey with information about its land. That decision, unannounced previously and taken without any consultation with organisations representing map users, was set out in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) from the director general of the Ornance Survey. Its effect is that members of the public will be deprived of an important source of information about where they can freely walk in the countryside.
The Government should follow the example set by the United States of America, Denmark and other countries. However, I fear that they will not.
There are two solutions to the problem. First, the sale of forests, woodlands and open land should stop immediately, or the Government should instruct the Forestry Commission to include a clause in the sales agreement that guarantees the right of accessibility to the general public. Secondly, the Government should support this Bill and ensure that parliamentary time is allocated for it to become part of our legislation, thereby giving the public what they desire.
Therefore, I challenge the Government to get off their backsides and to do one or the other—to do nothing is criminal.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Michael Welsh, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett. Mr. Peter Hardy, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. George J. Buckley.

FORESTRY COMMISSION

Mr. Martin Redmond accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the Forestry Commission from transferring any land without guaranteeing continuing public access to that land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Orders of the Day — British Technology Group Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

'In preparing the Articles of Association of the successor company, the Secretary of State shall make such arrangements as he deems necessary to preserve the nature of those business activities being undertaken by the Board and Corporation immediately prior to the appointment of the successor company.'.—[Sir Gerard Vaughan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss: New clause 5—Independence of the successor company—
'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the successor company shall take such steps as are necessary to preserve the independence of the British Technology Group to enable it to maintain and extend its services in the field of technology transfer.'.
Amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, after 'section 2', insert 'and subsection (1A) below'.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall not be empowered to vest the property, rights and liabilities as set out in subsection (1) above unless he publishes plans showing how the independence, impartiality and integrity of the successor company will be guaranteed.'.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am disappointed to note that new clause 3 and amendment No. 4 have not been selected, given that they are the official Opposition's principal amendments to the Bill. I understand that that is because of a technicality in the drafting. May I have an assurance from you, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the reasonably wide-ranging nature of the new clauses and amendments that have been selected, we shall be able to cover in that debate the matters of principle that we had intended to cover in our new clause and amendment?

Mr. Speaker: I went carefully into the question of the selection of the amendments. I cannot select defective amendments. Matters of principle, but not the new clause and amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, may be debated with the group.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear clearly, but am I right in thinking that matters of principle may be raised? I understand that the selection of new clauses and amendments is entirely a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, but would it be in order for me to speak to new clause 2 although it has not been selected? I wish to deal with a matter of detail, not simply a matter of principle.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give reasons for my decisions, but perhaps I could hint to him that that matter was fully debated in Committee.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: I believe that the purpose of new clause 1 is absolutely clear. We wish to safeguard the future in this country of a very special organisation. We wish to ensure that the British Technology Group becomes an independent corporate body with the vitality and freedom to carry out an extremely important role in academic research, inventiveness and commercial activity. Despite all the Minister's excellent work on the Bill to date, we do not think that he has so far given adequate safeguards to ensure that.
I am sure that we would all agree that the new BTG should be able to draw sufficient sums of money—at times quite large sums of money—to enable it to carry out its future role. At the same time, it must not be put at risk of being taken over by a huge industrial corporation or concern, which would almost certainly be from overseas, and which would have the sole object of taking over the 8,000 patents and future patents that BTG holds and of using them for its own commercial advantage. We must be sure that BTG could not be asset-stripped.
We are particularly concerned to protect the intellectual property and inventiveness of the universities. We want to see inventions marketed adequately, but we want them to be safeguarded. The intellectual property of the universities belongs in the first instance, of course, to the universities themselves. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the only way to secure such safeguards is to form a consortium in which the universities have a proper stake. The universities should also play a role on the management board of any future company.
I also suggest that the Government should hold a stake in any future organisation for at least the first few years to ensure that some undesirable organisation does not take advantage of it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) will seek to say something about the university aspect.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that his first priority will be, not to extract as much money as possible on behalf of the Treasury, but to ensure that the future British Technology Group operates in the way that we have suggested. I am sure that the Minister's intentions are good, but statements of good intention are not really sufficient in this matter. He should not try to keep all his options open but should tell us clearly what he has in mind.
The wording of our new clause may not be perfect—the wording of amendments tabled by Back-Bench Members is rarely perfect—but if there are small faults in it I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the good intentions behind it and will undertake to table an amendment with improved wording, if he thinks it necessary to do so, when the Bill goes to another place.
We regard the Bill as extremely important for the future of our scientific and technological progress in Britain. The British Technology Group has played an important role already as a public body. We believe that it will gain enormously from being in the private sector, but it will do so only if there are proper safeguards for its future.

Mr. Rees: I and some of my colleagues on both sides of the House tabled an amendment which refers to articles of association. You, Mr. Speaker, were right in saying that we have already dealt with one aspect of the matter in Committee, but in Committee we were referring to members of the board of directors of the new company. I declare an interest as a member of the courts of London


university and of the London School of Economics. Some of us felt that if we failed in the matter of individual members of the board the Government should have regard to the interests of the university in drawing up the articles of association of the successor company.
We do not argue that directors should necessarily be appointed to the companies in the way that we suggested in Committee, but the interests of the universities should be taken into account. While I accept your decision, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that we shall not be able to vote on our amendment, I should like to deal with the interests of the universities.
This is not simply another privatisation Bill. It is privatisation of a particular form of the British Technology Group which, from the day it was set up under a different name in 1947–48, was a concept different from other nationalisation measures of the time.
It is important for the House to take into account the nature of articles of association which lay down the objectives of a company. I have looked at the articles of association of my college, the London School of Economics, and of others, and the objectives of the company should take into account the interests of the universities, not those of the individuals who are appointed to the company.
All the briefing that we have had, which I shall not repeat because it was dealt with in Committee, shows that the BTG's intellectual property enanated from the universities and the research councils, as is mentioned in new clause 2, which says:
The Secretary of State shall … have regard to the interests of the universities and the Research Councils … and shall consult with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Research Councils".
That is vital.
The Secretary of State must take into account the fact that the universities account for the largest single source of the BTG's intellectual property—about 60 per cent. if one takes into account the teaching hospitals. The research council institutes and the research associations account for 25 per cent. and the rest comes largely from Government laboratories. The BTG depends for its success on the high quality research and inventiveness of our universities. Therefore, the interests of those institutions should be taken into account when drawing up the articles of association. That argument has been made in a different context many times, so I shall not argue the case again.
The Minister met representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals yesterday in a different context. He knows the worth of the arguments that are put forward by people in that group, the nature of the BTG, and that it is important that the intellectual property should be safeguarded so that it can be used properly in future by the successor company. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance about the nature of the articles of association and that he will safeguard the intellectual property of the universities.
We know about the problems that have long faced universities about the nature of fundamental research and applied research and as a result of a shortage of money. Earning money through the BTG has enabled them to have more students, particularly in the natural sciences, and so on.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: The right hon. Gentleman talks about safeguarding the interests of universities. Does he agree that they should have an active role in any future

body? It is not enough simply to have people who think the way that they do; the universities should play a part in the management of a future body.

Mr. Rees: I was trying to observe Mr. Speaker's ruling and not put forward a more detailed argument. The short answer is that I agree fully. What matters is that the interests of the universities and research councils should be taken into account. It is up to the Government to determine the appropriate way of doing so.
We argued this case twice in Committee. At the end of the day I think that all members on both sides of the Committee understood that the privatisation of the BTG is different from other privatisations and that wherever the successor company gets its capital from, whatever the problems about pensions and asset stripping, it is vital that our universities, which lead the world in so many ways, should still be able to work in the new successor company for their own ends and for those of the country. That can be done only if the articles of association are drawn up in such a way that the interests of the universities are taken into account; and there are various means by which that could be done.
Although the new clause that I tabled has not been selected for consideration, I hope that the Minister will take it into account.

4 pm

Sir Trevor Skeet: I support the new clause. It is important to take into account the assets that are at risk. The BTG represents a core team of specialists in technological transfer and patent protection. Some 8,200 patents have been granted and 500 licensing agreements reached. These bring in royalties—the bulk of the BTG income—of £29·5 million.
Although it is important to take into account the relationship between the BTG and the universities, it is also important to consider what the BTG represents. It has a staff of 188 and it employs six solicitors, 18 patent agents with trainees, 15 financial managers, plus six on the venture capital side and 60 specialists in technology transfer who work in the operating division. I would challenge anyone to say that there is any other group in the United Kingdom with such a team of experts as that in the BTG, which has operated for so many years. It would be disgraceful if those people were abandoned in the future, particularly if that were as a result of asset stripping.
The BTG has agreements with 50 universities, 17 polytechnics and eight medical schools. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has already mentioned that the universities are by far the biggest source of the BTG's intellectual property—they account for more than 50 per cent. of it, if the contribution from the teaching hospitals is included. Another 25 per cent. of that intellectual property comes from the research councils. Given that contribution, it is only right that the House should hold out for special consideration for the universities, polytechnics and medical schools. My hon. Friend the Minister has a tricky course to follow, but I hope that he will take into account that special consideration and protect it.
I have outlined the assets that are at stake, but it is important to consider it from a different angle—the risk to which those assets will be exposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) has already mentioned asset stripping, but the elimination of our


competitive technologies would be equally disastrous. Some 70 per cent. of the licensed income of the BTG comes from abroad and it will be especially vulnerable to foreign takeover. Given that 40 per cent. of its income comes from the United States, and knowing how grasping that country is and how covetous it is of the BTG since the American equivalent is much smaller, I dare say that the United States will want to take it over at the first opportunity. We must do something to protect the BTG from that.
We must also prevent sector domination by a limited number of shareholders. Shares can be allocated to any one shareholder, but they must be strictly limited by number.
It is important to appreciate the earnings to BTG from its various intellectual property. Antibiotics provide £150 million for the BTG, magnetic resonance imaging £18 million and cholesterol measurement equipment another £6 million—a sizeable proportion of the total income of the BTG. One can imagine that a pharmaceutical company would say, "It is ripe for takeover and if we had it, we could strip out any of the assets that we didn't require and put them into the relevant side of the company".

Mr. Anthony Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we want is not a friendly assessment of our case from the Minister, but an undertaking that when the Bill leaves Parliament it will contain provisions to protect the company? Is not that what my hon. Friend is saying that the Minister should do today?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I have not yet heard what the Minister has to say, but I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. This is the Report stage and the Bill will soon be passed. I want the Bill to contain a clause to ensure that there is a reference to the articles of association, which will enable the Minister to say that there will be a ruling on anyone who sets up an independent company hereafter so that we shall have some control over it.
I espouse my hon. Friend's arguments, but I go further. The pharmaceutical industry—Du Pont, Bayer in Germany, Smithkline Beecham, perhaps, in the United Kingdom, Glaxo and others would like to take over the company. The BTG has 8,000 patents in 1,500 different sectors of technology, and they would all be extremely useful. Therefore, we must examine the issue carefully.
I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I wish to make one further important point about similar organisations and technology transfers. I mentioned the American Research Corporation. In the United Kingdom, we have 3i Research Exploitation Limited, which is smaller than the BTG but which is important because its parent company is a substantial size. It is possible that, in the future, that little organisation, backed up by a powerful parent company, may wish to take over the BTG. I am for competition, so I would not like to see the company taken over. Therfore, I suggest that we should be very cautious.
The BTG's chief executive, Ian Harvey, said:
BTG's royalty revenues are greater than the total royalties earned by the entire US university and government research systems combined.
The BTG is a plum to be picked unless we do something to safeguard it.
I know that the Minister is listening intently. He must say that he will safeguard the company once it is released from his control. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said on Second Reading that he could give safeguards through the golden share for two or three years, but a provision should be written into the articles of association to give further coverage in future and to ensure that the technology in which the United Kingdom has secured an advanced position is safeguarded for the next decade.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to speak especially to the new clause and the amendments tabled in my name, but I should like first to comment on new clause 1 and on the contributions made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet).
I support the proposition that there should be as much effort, thought and consideration as possible before a decision is made on principle by the Government to include academic and university interests in the future structure, as they have requested and as they are keen to ensure. I have read the contributions made by the Minister in Committee. Although I was not a member of that Committee, I have followed the Bill with considerable interest and, so far, the Minister has kept his cards close to his chest—not a single card has been revealed.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Perhaps he does not have any.

Mr. Hughes: It is not for me to say whether he has any, but he will certainly have to play some cards if he wants to get the Bill through the House. He will have to open the Bill up to amendment either here or in the other place because eminent Members on both sides of both Houses will join in voicing substantial and significant concern.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North described the BTG as a plum ripe for the picking. The BTG is our scientific and technological family silver, albeit recently acquired family silver—a collection built up over the past 40 years and, in particular, the past 10 years. The Minister knows that in the past six years the BTG has been pre-eminently successful. As the hon. Member of Parliament in whose constituency the BTG's headquarters are located, I feel somewhat defensive. I am concerned that we should not, as a result of our negligence, allow the assets to be pinched. There can be no excuse for that because we have all been alerted to the importance of the assets that we have in our possession.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like most of us, would not mind selling an asset—even the family silver—if, in doing so, he could turn the result into an appreciating asset. I imagine that the BTG feels exactly the same.

Mr. Hughes: There is all the difference in the world between changing the management structure of the BTG for a good management reason and protecting rightful interests, and incorporating it, without individual justification, in the Government's general privatisation programme without affording it the protection that all hon. Members seek for it. I have talked to the chief executive of the BTG and have no doubt that the management are impressive in terms of both expertise and vision. I do not share the view that we want a BTG


protected from any foreign interest. The chief executive confirmed what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North said about foreign interest and revenue-earning—par-ticularly from the United States and, increasingly, from Japan and so on. I know, too, that that source of funding will be increasingly important in future. But there is all the difference in the world between accepting that and allowing the BTG to be successful in the world market, and taking up the anchor and allowing the BTG to be bought out by whoever comes along, thus ensuring that a potentially great asset for British technology is no longer available to us or in any way under our control. The Minister must come clean about that this afternoon.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Let us forget technology for one moment. The company is attractive from another angle. Its gross profits rose from £3·5 million in 1987 to £9·5 million in 1990. Its income rose from £17 million in 1987 to £29·5 million in 1990. The company is a catch by any standards, quite apart from its technological importance.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The BTG is not only important as a scientific and technological resource and because it is so valuable—as the hon. Gentleman said, its earnings last year were more than £29 million—but because it is one of the mechanisms by which Britain will succeed. It is a reserve of academic and scientific skill, expertise and cross-fertilisation between subjects which will allow us to do well in the world. It is a service mechanism for British inventions and allows us to convert those inventions into the best-developed and most saleable products while safeguarding the interests of our continuing public scientific and technological base. To get rid of the BTG or not to protect its future would be to allow all Britain's intellectual and academic experts to do their job with no guarantee that any of their work would be used in the interests of their national economy and scientific base. That would be folly indeed. I cannot think of anything more foolish, given how dependent we will be on such expertise in the future for our international economic success. If we throw away something that we do so well, we shall throw away a potential cornerstone of our achievement in the next century.
4.15 pm
As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North rightly reminded us, we are discussing a thriving, successful and visionary business in which several hundred committed people representing several disciplines are working together to ensure that its future is secure. That is one of its unique aspects, as is the support that it has been given by the academic community, to which it represents a bridge between pure, "blue sky" research and the commercial world. It has been a flagship for our inventors and their inventions—and if flagships are sunk on a regular basis, not much of a navy will be left.
The BTG has pulled itself out of the doldrums. It has done very well over recent years and it deserves support. I ask the Government to respond to our concern and to accept that they should not be given a blank cheque and told to do what they will with it. I shall press the Minister especially hard on new clause 5, which—along with new clause 1—he will probably find easier to accept than amendment No. 6.
New clause 5 seeks to impose on the Secretary of State the duty of ensuring

that the successor company shall take such steps as are necessary to preserve the independence of the British Technology Group to enable it to maintain and extend its services in the field of technology transfer.
The wording of amendment No. 6 follows the "three i's" definition given by the chairman of BTG, which has been quoted extensively both on Second Reading and in Committee—"independence, impartiality and integrity". It calls for the Secretary of State not to be able to pass on BTG through this enabling Bill without setting out how he will guarantee those qualities in the future. Those conditions will secure BTG's safety.
It is, I think, accepted that even BTG's current management do not consider the existing assurances and guarantees go sufficiently far. I do not believe that I am betraying any secrets in saying that new clause 1 was tabled with the support of the management. It is they who have argued over the years that BTG should change its status and have come out in favour of its transfer from what can be broadly defined as the public sector to the private sector; but they, too, want assurances. If they—the people who have been pushing hardest for the change—are not happy, others can reasonably be assumed to be even less happy.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: It is no use our country's having inventions if they cannot then be marketed to its benefit. It would be a tragedy if inventors lost confidence in the new body and did not make their inventions available to it.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Some of the company's employees—who include constituents of mine—fear that the wrong sort of sale, without guarantees, would have two effects. First, it would not protect the public interest; and, secondly, it would not gain the confidence of the universities, which at present take their ideas to the company in the hope that they will be developed confidentially and intelligently so that they can be exploited to best effect. They will not go there if they believe that BTG will be bought. I am not against the idea of an international interest in it. A 10 per cent. American, Japanese or European Community shareholding might be entirely appropriate. Let us, however, consider a Japanese takeover of BTG. It is highly unlikely that many of those who currently confide the development of their invention to BTG and who come from a British academic background would continue to want to do so. They would understand that their invention would not be used, as it is now, for development at home of things that they want to develop at home. That is a practical concern. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman was right. That concern is shared profoundly by employees who are troubled by the proposals. We need to take account of their troubles and concerns.
Amendment No. 6 adopts the chairman's language. I ask the Minister to be much clearer than he was in Committee, where he said:
Anxieties about the effect of privatisation on the 3i are important. The BTG chairman, Sir Colin Barker, stressed the importance of retaining 3i and several Opposition Members expressed similar anxieties. They want the Bill to include measures to safeguard the 3i after privatisation. The Government will take those anxieties into account when deciding the form of privatisation and whether safeguards are necessary in the articles or the agreement of sale.
That was the point made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). The Minister continued:


Other factors will be taken into account in determining the best route for privatisation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7 March 1991; c. 150.]
However, the Minister refused to say specifically that he would give any guarantees or undertakings. To take those anxieties into account does not reveal the Government's hand. Independence has not been guaranteed.
The Minister was also asked to deal with whether it would be possible for a single purchaser to take over BTG lock, stock and barrel. However, he did not adequately do so. That question was put simply by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing):
I was objecting to the idea of one company buying out the BTG and using its resources solely for its own interest. The Minister said that that was a possibility.
The Minister replied:
It is a possibility."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 28 February 1991; c. 97.]
That should not be. Those who were not members of the Committee or who have not read the reports of the debates may not be aware that the Government accept that a wholesale acquisition is a possibility. That is unacceptable not just to those who were the progenitors of BTG and brought it into being in the 1940s, or to those who kept it in being during the 1980s, but to all those who are interested in BTG. Such an unconditional possibility is unacceptable to them.
If such a sell-out is possible, the conclusion must be that impartiality will be impossible. If a large or a monopoly shareholder decided not to accept or develop products if the new inventions threatened their market share in goods that they already produce, there would be no independence. If BTG were to be sold in an uncontrolled manner, without any limits on the size of shareholdings, or on the level of overseas shareholdings, the management's motivation would be affected. It would be much more likely to be motivated by the need to meet shareholders' demands for profits, not excellence.
The danger is that patents will be sold off to the highest bidder. That may be in our short-term commercial interests, but it would do no good to our long-term commercial interests. Shareholders could cream off the profits instead of making sure that we develop patents.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister the following questions. Will he tell the House unequivocally that he has no intention of selling BTG to the highest bidder? Can he assure us that that will not be possible? Will he tell us unequivocally that there will not be an overseas monopoly of shares in BTG? Will he tell us unequivocally that he intends to ensure, through the articles of association, that BTG will have a duty to consider all patents brought to it in an impartial manner, uninfluenced by the business interests of the shareholders? Will he tell us unequivocally that, in the articles of association, BTG will not have as a business objective the selling of patents for short-term profits rather than preserving the long-term interests of current and future patent holders and licensees? Lastly, will he tell us unequivocally that BTG will be required, if and when it is privatised, rigorously to defend the patents and licences that it has built up as part of its portfolio over the years of its success? We need some assurances and if they are not forthcoming we shall have to register our dissatisfaction.
I have spoken in a non-partisan way as someone who has been aware of the benefit of BTG for all the years that

I have been Member of Parliament for Southwark and Bermondsey, not just because it is based in my constituency but because it is a key scientific resource. I hope that the message is clear across the House.
If the Minister can help us today, he will get far less of a rough ride from the other place. If he does not help us today, he must not underestimate that the other place may give him a very hard time. I have no wish to make the Minister's summer difficult or unpleasant, but I do not want him to be dogmatic about the BTG. There are ways of protecting its interests. If that is achieved none of us will be dogmatic about it, but if that does not happen we will have to stand firm and say that the Government are not being honest or straightforward and that they are not looking after the nation's interests as they should.

Dr. Hampson: It is worth recording officially that today is remarkable in one essential respect. This is the first privatisation that the Government have undertaken that the Labour party has not opposed. The amendments do not object to the privatisation. Their purpose is merely to ensure that the end product satisfies a common purpose.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I hate to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but we voted against the Second Reading and, subject to what the Minister has to say, no doubt we shall vote against the Third Reading. We have steadily expressed our opposition to the Bill throughout. Certainly within the framework of Government policy we seek to improve the Bill as far as it can be improved.

Dr. Hampson: That just goes to show what a lot of charlatans the Opposition are. Anyone who has read what BTG has stated and particularly what the chief executive wrote in the Observer in March would have no argument against the Bill. When one talks to Opposition Members, they accept its validity. I thought that the Labour party had basically accepted five or six central points.

Dr. Moonie: Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that the chief executive of the British Technology Group has only the good interests of the company at heart and not his own?

Dr. Hampson: That is one of the great giveaways of all time. I always thought that the Labour party was advocating that management should look after the interests of the company and its work force. Here we are saying that the man who is closest to the coal face, if one can use a Labour phrase, does not know what is in the best interests of the company. Since when did the Government know what are the best interests of the company?
One of the problems in this country has been that we have had no effective means of technology transfer between the originators in the academic world and delivery in business. We have been edging forward out of the grotesque bureaucratic apparatus which the Labour party supported and, from what we have just heard, seems still to support, into a much more flexible instrument. It is an instrument that is very successful in generating returns for the universities—£13 million a year. It is seen by the universities as one of the most effective means of promoting their inventions. As the universities themselves are not against this privatisation, it is extraordinary that the Labour party opposes it. But Labour has managed to get itself ideologically cocooned; it is simply against privatisation in principle, no matter what the context.

Dr. Moonie: I hoped that the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the more intelligent Members on the Government Back Benches, would be able to recognise the difference between making the best of a bad job and supporting a principle.

Dr. Hampson: Now the hon. Gentleman is changing his tune. It is significant that there are hardly more than four Labour Members in the Chamber to take part in the great defence of their principle. The Opposition recognise that the future of this operation depends on its being in the private sector. The company itself says so. If it is to remain the world's leading technology transfer company. it will, they say, have to be "given the freedom and the stimulus of the private sector". If it is to succeed, it cannot be parochial. It must not be restricted within the bounds of an island off the greater part of the continent, and isolated from the rest of the world. This must be a global operation. It is vital that it has the critical mass which will give it the investment potential that is necessary if it is to draw on innovative capacity around the world, for the benefit of this country.
Governments will set limits on its operations, and have to approve board members and executives. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the organisation should have to exist in a critical and competitive world with one hand tied behind its back? Is he saying that it should be kept in a financial straitjacket?
The Opposition do not seem to realise what has been happening in recent years. Today, the Treasury is more short term in its thinking than is any organisation in the City. The hon. Gentleman should take the trouble to read some of the remarks of the chief executive of BTG. Two years ago, on the orders of the Treasury, it had to pay dividends amounting to £8·6 million, despite the fact that its after-tax profit was £5·2 million. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman, instead of trying to intervene ideologic-ally, should listen. How does he justify the fact that a company that he wants to succeed had to pay dividends amounting to £8·6 million, although its after-tax profit was £5·2 million? That is a means of preventing this organisation from backing British innovation and from succeeding in technology transfer.

Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a Treasury straitjacket. But Treasury straitjackets are not immutable; they can be changed. The hon. Gentleman says that the company has one hand tied behind its back. But this is the world's most successful technology transfer organisation. No organisation in any other country comes anywhere near it. It seems to have done rather well in the straitjacket that the Treasury has provided for it. On the question of management, surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that a survey of the views of all the employees of BTG showed that an overwhelming majority were opposed to the principle and practice of privatisation.

Dr. Hampson: The hon. Gentleman has just given the game away totally. Only five minutes ago he was condemning the management; now he is praising it for having done a brilliant job in the straitjacket of the Treasury. He knows that the company will prosper without that straitjacket.
This debate is really about protecting intellectual property and the people who create it—the innovators.
Every one of the amendments that we are debating is, in a sense, flawed. We have all fallen into the trap of talking about the articles of the successor company. The successor company will be a Government company run by civil servants, and it may last a long or short time. The amendments' aim is to probe the Government's intention for the private operation, not the successor company, which is a technical term for the interim period before the company is sold.
I hope that we are seeking not blanket condemnation of the principle of privatisation but firm guarantees from my hon. Friend the Minister on the structure of the private company that will emerge. If he can give those guarantees, new clause 1 and new clause 5 become redundant. We shall have to wait and see whether my hon. Friend can go beyond what he said in Committee.

Dr. Bray: New clause 1 is not as defective as the hon. Gentleman suggests because clause 15 defines the successor company as
the company nominated for the purposes of section 1";
and under clause 1 the successor company is the company that
the Secretary of State may by order appoint all the property, rights and liabilities to".
Only the sale of shares in the successor company constitutes the act of privatisation. The successor company, surely, continues, so new clause 5 is in order.

Dr. Hampson: There is a nice legal dispute about what the amendment means, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to clarify that. We are trying to ensure that the final structure of the company meets valid objectives, the critical one being that the British Technology Group is our primary instrument for transferring bright ideas and breakthroughs to the private sector. It must therefore remain independent and in no circumstances must it fall into foreign ownership.
I might as well jump my own gun and say that the most important point that my hon. Friend the Minister must clarify concerns the prospect of a golden share held by the Government. The model was water privatisation, where we established a five-year golden share, which must be a minimum period to prevent asset stripping, especially foreign asset stripping.

Dr. Bray: rose—

Dr. Hampson: I shall give way again to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), but my brief intervention is becoming a summing up. I have replied to about six interventions. The Labour party is so sensitive on this issue that it cannot do other than constantly defend its position.

Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman is making a useful speech. He said that he would like to see a golden share. Will he support amendment No. 2, which creates such a golden share for the precise period that he specified?

Dr. Hampson: I shall wait to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says. I am always hesitant to support amendments tabled by the Labour party; I am sure that its amendment is as inadequately drafted as amendments that I have tabled. I have long said that a golden share is the only sensible guarantee of avoiding asset stripping.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Dr. Hampson: I shall give way, but it must be for the last time as this is a short debate.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logic of his general principle—that we must protect this important mechanism—will not be sustained by the mechanism that he proposes? A golden share kept for, say, five years places as much uncertainty in the mind of the prospective inventor who wants to use BTG, because after five years there may be no golden share. We need a mechanism and guarantees that the structure will be circumscribed in certain respects. It will be in the private sector, but in these respects we shall have control over it. Five years is short term, with the risk that it all gets lost in five years' time. That will not provide the confidence that is one of the prerequisites for the operation's necessary success.

Dr. Hampson: I was coming to that point because I agree that short termism is a problem, and I have commented on that in one context already. It also applies in the sense that five years means that it will come, probably, in the political cycle. A body that earns perhaps 70 per cent. of its income abroad and has to deal with private companies and private enterprise in, say, Japan will have problems if we are not careful, with a Labour Government potentially always hovering around threatening to turn it into some nasty bureaucratic stranglehold operation. No national enterprise will ever be able to draw on the property rights of other, private companies. We have seen a couple of major examples already with BTG.
A golden share is essential in the transitional period and as the major protection against asset stripping, which may be by a British company; and may not be foreign. But I fear that the major Japanese conglomerates, with their huge banking resources and industrial strength, would thrive on the innovative power that BTG generates. So there has to be a ceiling, and this is the third point that I want to ask my hon. Friend to clarify. I want him to go beyond what he said in Committee and to say that there will be a ceiling on the equity holding of any foreign operation.
I endorse entirely what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) in moving the new clause. We are primarily interested in the independance of this operation. The consortium idea is a very attractive one because I believe that the universities are a critical force that has to be recognised. It is almost irrelevant whether they have one, two or more members on the board. It is the blocking stake in the operation overall that is important. I hope that they can generate the resources. We have to look quite inventively, as some operations in the United States have done, at how private industrial business capital can go through the university world to lock the universities into a major participating element of this company—a 20 per cent. stake—a blocking stake of some kind, to keep the universities as a central player in the operation.
Above all, I hope that what will emerge from what my hon. Friend says today is the recognition that a Major society, if I can coin a phrase, if it is to be an innovative society, must ensure that this form of partnership between the academic, innovating world and the private capitalist world, which is the dynamo of the world economy, thrives and succeeds. I believe that what we are doing today is the right way forward.

Mr. Mike Watson: It was stated on Second Reading and on a number of occasions in Committee that there is no need for the privatisation of the British Technology Group. I do not intend to go over that ground again, but one point that should be mentioned is that, if and when the BTG is privatised, the United Kingdom will be the only major industrial nation that will not provide backing for technology transfer. I believe that we should learn a lesson from some of our industrial competitors, such as the United States, France and Japan, all of which have industrial records that are considerably better than ours and all of which have state owned and controlled technology transfer companies which perform effectively.
I find it strange that the Minister and his colleagues have found little good to say on behalf of BTG and the job it is doing. We know that it is profitable and effective and that it is regarded highly by universities, research institutions, and so forth. Yet the Government are determined to force it into the private sector irrespective, apparently, of the effect that that will have on its effectiveness.
4.45 pm
Some comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) about BTG were rather patronising. He talked of the Opposition's approach to BTG and referred to the so-called straitjacket within which he believed it was currently operating. There is little evidence of that, despite comments which the senior staff of BTG have made and which were repeated in Committee. It seems clear that the body is effective and ought to be allowed to continue in that way. However, we must be realistic and assume that the Bill will eventually become law and that BTG will be privatised. On that assumption, the question of safeguards, which is referred to particularly in new clause 1, is important.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) raised the question of assets. He talked of the prime assets of the company as being the staff. I would not disagree, but I thought that he was a bit restrictive. He talked of senior staff and of investment, knowledge, research, expertise, and so forth. There are 188 staff at the British Technology Group, and I think it is wrong to say that we should be absolutely certain that some of those staff stay with the group when it is privatised while others are of less importance. There is a contribution of expertise from the staff on a wider scale that should be valued and recognised.
Although staff are clearly prime assets of any organisation, I am also concerned—and this is not the first time that I have said so during the stages of this Bill— about the question of patents owned by BTG and what will happen to them subsequent to privatisation. I spoke on Second Reading on 12 February and made similar comments, which drew an intervention from the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North, who said that he saw no problem with regard to patents. I raised the question again in Committee, addressing my remarks to the Under-Secretary, and said that I had had no assurances from him in his summing up on Second Reading and hoped that I would have some assurances on that later occasion.
The Under-Secretary said that the question of patents was one of the important points which the Government wished to draw out from the debate—I use his words. But it was never successfully drawn out from the debate in


Committee and there is no evidence as yet that the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues is likely to give it any emphasis at this stage of the Bill.
It is very important that the question of patents is addressed and that assurances are given to universities and other research bodies. Many individuals who work within unversities need assurances about what will happen under the new ownership of the group. I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening when I ask again for such assurances. I see that he is not listening, but perhaps the message will eventually get through to him that the people responsible for inventions need assurances about patents.
One reason why we need such assurances concerns how patents might be defended following the sale of BTG. The fact that BTG pursued the Pentagon recently in a case that lasted for a considerable time and resulted in payments of some £6 million being made to BTG and the owners of the patents concerned has rightly received a lot of publicity. That is not a typical example, but BTG has been vigorous in defending the patents within its control and we need assurances that that will continue. Legal action is, of necessity, costly, particularly lengthy cases, often against powerful predators—multinational corporations perhaps —and these may not be attractive to the new owners of BTG.
I am particularly concerned about comments made by Dr. Ian Young, the manager of research on nuclear magnetic resonance, which has been a major earner for the British Technology Group. He said that he was concerned about overseas patent infringers. What would happen if the new owners of the group were faced with a similar situation in terms of one of the existing patents, or indeed a patent which came along subsequent to privatisation, and the estimation was made by the new owners that the cost of litigation in defending that patent could not be justified for any number of reasons, the least of which might be financial?
Some safeguard has to be written into the Bill. There is no safeguard whatsoever, and I am particularly concerned that this matter is addressed and that the Under-Secretary gives us the Government's views about how this problem may be dealt with after privatisation.
The last point that I want to mention was covered by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for whom I have great respect. He is the Member who represents me through my London residence; therefore, I want to keep in his good books. I also have great respect for his knowledge of education matters and for his ability to extend his comments over a long period. On occasion that has been of benefit both in Committee and in the House. The hon. Gentleman is not here at the moment, but I should like him to know that I mean those comments kindly; no doubt his colleague the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will pass them on.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey talked about who might take over BTG when it goes up for sale. He expressed the view, which I wholeheartedly echo, that the highest bidder should not necessarily be successful. That is of great importance.
It is also important that consideration is given to expertise. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West said towards the end of his contribution that universities might have a role to play in bidding for the British Technology Group. I hope that that possibility comes to fruition.

Dr. Hampson: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that the universities should bid for BTG because that would be a gross waste of their resources; I do not even know how they would do it. However, I think that they have a part to play in a consortium arrangement in which they would have a blocking element, if for no other reason than that I do not want the ownership of BTG to be vested in an industrial corporation which would use the intellectual property rights generated in this country to block universities from commercial activity just because they were in competition with things that the company was already doing. I think that the universities have to be built into the system to look after the interests of the innovators, but I do not want the universities to own the company.

Mr. Watson: I value that qualification of the hon. Gentleman's remarks; I had misinterpreted what he said. The argument as to whether the universities and research councils should have representation on the board of the new company, by whomsoever it is owned, was addressed in Committee. Such suggestions came from the Opposition and were rejected by the Government. I share the concern of the Member for Leeds, North-West and hope that something will come of it.
I was addressing my remarks to the possibility that some universities may form a consortium with research organisations and foundations, possibly involving British Technology Group managers and employees, to bid for the company. That would not mean that it would be owned by the universities, but they would have an input financially and in expertise. It would not necessarily cost the universities a great deal to divert funds which might be used for other purposes at a time when they are being squeezed, but it would mean that there would be a direct input from universities, which would be much more desirable than commercial considerations being brought to bear on BTG which has shown over the years that it can conduct technology transfer in a way which, while being profitable, is not driven by profit as the main motive. It is important to stress that profit need not and should not be the main motive.
There is a great deal of expertise, particularly in universities and research councils, that must be used to ensure that the British Technology Group post-privatisation maintains its role of being effective in technology transfer. If it is run simply as a business proposition, it will have a short life. No hon. Member wants that. If the Government are prepared to take note of the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I think that we will achieve some assurances of university and research council involvement. That is very important for the future development of the British Technology Group.

Mr. Alex Carlile: At one point during the debate we started to descend into the political arena as to whether the British Technology Group should be privatised because privatisation is a good thing or not privatised because it is perceived to be a bad thing. That was a little caricature of a sensitive and mature debate about the nature of the business activities carried out by BTG.
Everyone who has spoken in the debate shares the same sense of purpose that there should be at least a body, whether it is called the British Technology Group or something else, to which British invention can go with


confidence, knowing that it will be supported not only in the short term but in the long term, that its intellectual property will be nurtured and that it may be nurtured in the national interest, which seems to be not an unreasonable end for which to aim.
The function of the British Technology Group includes securing, where the public interest so requires, the development or exploitation of inventions resulting from public research. That is entirely laudable. Neither on Second Reading nor in the Committee proceedings which I have studied have the Government been able to give satisfactory assurances that the strategic aims of the British Technology Group will continue. It seems possible that in a very short time the assets of the group will be sold to the highest bidder, who may not have our national interest at heart.
Hon. Members have mentioned selling the family silver. In one respect at least there is a danger of giving away rather than selling the family silver. I put to the Minister a point which I hope he will deal with in due course. It relates to the intellectual property of research carried out by or on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It has come to my attention that in February 1987 a confidential internal paper was circulated in the Ministry. It was written by Dr. C. E. Fisher and was entitled:
Policy and Organisation Study of Exploitation of Intellectual Property in MAFF.
Following the circulation of that paper and discussion on it, there was apparently an agreement that the British Technology Group would handle the exploitation and the export, where appropriate, of the intellectual property of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That agreement was marked by a MAFF press release dated 4 January 1990. It was not one of the most howling successes of MAFF's energetic publicity machine as all that it rated was a small piece in one, albeit distinguished, farming journal.
In the light of that, can the Minister tell us whether the British Technology Group will give up that agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before privatisation, or will it give away in the privatisation all the intellectual property of which it has the advantage arising from the Ministry's activities? If the intellectual property of the Ministry of Agriculture is simply to be given away to whomsoever purchases the group, that will be truly giving away the family silver.
A connected complication arises in relation to the royal botanic gardens at Kew. Since 1984 they have been funded by a grant in aid from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As I understand the position, any intellectual property that has arisen from research at Kew is part of the agreement to which I referred earlier. That means that the British Technology Group, under that agreement, owns the intellectual property—or at least holds the rights to it—arising from the world-renowned efforts of the researchers at the royal botanical gardens. For example, the gardens have the largest collection of wild plant seeds in the world, a major resource not only for third world development but for agricultural, horticultural and botanical development throughout the world.
Will the British Technology Group give away those potentially hugely valuable intellectual assets when it is privatised? Will that important piece of public property

simply be handed over.. to a private purchaser? Will the Minister answer those questions when he replies to the debate?

5 pm

Dr. Hampson: The British Technology Group will not be giving away those assets if they are properly developed and exploited and become commercially successful. It all comes back to the nature of the company. We are not giving away public sector assets but trying to develop them. I do not mind if public sector inventions are developed by private companies. Does the hon. Gentleman mind?

Mr. Carlile: I have divulged to the House that, as a result of its public service position, the British Technology Group was given valuable assets which it would not have acquired had it not been in such a position. That has not been revealed to the House before and is a well-concealed fact. It should be part of the consideration when the House decides how to vote on the Bill. I suspect that when the matter is debated in another place, it will be an energetic debate led by some university chancellors and others from academic backgrounds, and those considerations will be important when they decide whether the Government have come clean about what is happening.
Is British public service inventiveness being protected? We must bear in mind what has happened in various privatisations. I do not suggest that there has been bad faith in the setting of prices for privatisation deals, although others might do so. It is clear with hindsight, at least in market terms, that the private sector has had some extremely good bargains as a result of privatisations. We must therefore have a full understanding of what is being sold. For example, when we are dealing with Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food intellectual property, which is very much part of the public service, should not the public service gain from exploiting that intellectual property? The public service and the Government are entitled to the profits of that exploitation.
Research is still being carried out, albeit in diminished terms, on behalf of or by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. What will happen to the intellectual property in that research or research carried out by any other Department? Have the Government thought that through or will they hawk whatever intellectual property exists around the market to see who is the keenest taker? Do they really believe that companies will be prepared to take the long-term view that the British Technology Group has been prepared to take? The issue seems to be clarified by the words in the first new clause,
to preserve the nature of those business activities".
Will the Minister assure us that the type of business activities to which I referred will be preserved as public assets?

Dr. Bray: This useful group of amendments has attracted hon. Members who have a contribution to make to the subject of the Bill. Some of them spoke on Second Reading but were, unfortunately, excluded from the Committee, no doubt by the machinations of Committee selection procedure and the Whips, not to mention the Minister. Had they been members of the Committee, the Bill would have been in rather better shape now, and the future of the British Technology Group would be clearer. The Minister's mind would also be clearer. I doubt


whether he will be able to shed much light on the Government's plans for the future of BTG, even this evening.
The hon. Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) have, for a long time, taken great interest in science and technology, research and its application to universities, and the integration of universities' output into industry. Had the Government listened more carefully to their views, not only on the Bill but on other matters over the past 10 years, the economy would be in a better shape today.
The amendments cover a wide range of issues and tackle the problem of BTG's future from a number of different directions. New clause I uses the instrument of articles of association, which is a useful but fragile method because articles of association can be amended by a decision of a majority of shareholders and therefore constitute no permanent guarantee of what will happen to the company. The new clause leaves the arrangements to preserve the nature of those business activities to the Minister's judgment and to the action that he deems necessary. New clause 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), requires that
such steps as are necessary to preserve the independence of the British Technology Group
be taken. That is a somewhat stronger requirement than new clause 1 and does not leave it simply to the Minister's judgment. It is a distinct approach.
Everyone is concerned about continuing to preserve the nature of the business activities of the British Technology Group. That nature is a strategic role in the technology transfer processes of this country.
The Government introduced the Bill without a clear idea of what they wanted to do with BTG or even what its role is, or has been, in the economy and the processes of technology transfer. They introduced it partly out of a desire to remove it from the public sector. If anyone has been doctrinaire on that issue, it has been the Government.
Furthermore, the manner in which the Government have behaved toward BTG in the past 10 years has been disgraceful. They stifled a great deal of management initiative, which led to frustration on the council. Although that led the council to accept the idea of privatisation, it wanted privatisation with sufficient safeguards of the independence, integrity and impartiality of the successor organisation.

Dr. Hampson: About eight years ago, everyone was condemning BTG as being bureaucratic and unsuccessful. We transformed it and it has been more flexible and successful under the present format. The Government stopped it taking part in Alvey and Link only because it is a nationalised body. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, the organisation would be constricted and constrained for ever in that way.

Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman claims too much by saying "we" transformed BTG, if he refers to Conservative Members or even the Government. The staff and management of BTG transformed its operations and tightened up consideration of the intellectual property from universities and research councils. The greater concern of pursuing and promoting applications and so on was not the result of Government initiatives but the proper response of BTG. I would not minimise the importance of

the removal of the monopoly in stimulating BTG. We would not seek to reverse important development. We think that universities and research councils should be free to make whatever arrangements they consider appropriate for the application of the results of their research.
A number of influences have been at work. We certainly welcome the success that BTG has had in transforming itself into an operation that should—given reasonable luck because it remains risky—continue to be successful commercially. However, as hon. Members have repeatedly said in the debate, the Bill leaves the distinct possibility of the dismemberment, diversion or subversion of BTG. There are no safeguards for BTG's future, and the Government have given no assurances to provide adequate safeguards. BTG's assets could simply be stripped. If one were closing down the operation, the value of the office and the secure income revenue from the existing stock patents would certainly be sufficient to remunerate a substantial bid for BTG. However, the income that is in prospect and the assets in the building and bank deposits are there to facilitate the continuation of BTG in its present business. If that business were abandoned, assets would be available to an asset stripper and there is no safeguard against that under the Bill's provisions or in the sort of commitments that the Minister gave in Committee. We shall listen carefully to the Minister, but he is unlikely to give any more reassuring commitments tonight, so it may prove necessary to press a number of amendments to a Division.
It is not simply a matter of asset stripping. The sort of price that might be bid for BTG is small beer in relation to the value of single pieces of intellectual property. Were BTG fortunate enough to have the patents on Zantac, it would increase BTG's capital value one hundredfold. If there were reason to believe that a particular drug that BTG had patented on behalf of a client would lead to a large revenue, a drug company seeking to gain control of that patent could almost write off the purchase cost of BTG in its petty cash. In the high risk business about which we are talking, bidding for a company the size of BTG would not be a major consideration. The business is high risk and any such contingency is necessarily speculative, but that is the nature of the game in which we are engaged. It is because it is so speculative that the Opposition believe that BTG would, most sensibly, continue within the public sector where it can afford to take risks of the size incurred in such a game.
A further possibility is that, apart from the single, large, dramatic piece of intellectual property, some interests—most obviously, one or more Japanese companies—could seek to gain privileged access to a wide stream of intellectual know-how from British universities and research institutes. I was interested to find that the rate of investment by Japanese companies in new research facilities in this country was being closely followed, not only by people in this country, but by our partners in the European Community who, on a lesser scale than us, have had the same experience. I am told that there are a dozen Japanese research institutes, for example, in the Cambridge and Surrey university science parks, and near to Oxford, strategically placed to tap into the general stream of the British scientific tradition. In one sense, I say, "good luck to them", but if one adds to that factor the sort of facilities and lines of communication, and the continuing role in the transition that BTG offers, the Government's naivety is rampantly stupid. Nothing that


the Government have said has dismissed such a possibility. There are ways to safeguard against such a threat, and the amendments would prevent such a development, but the Government have steadily resisted such proposals.
A further consideration is that BTG management, particularly the chairman, has rightly stressed the necessity for the continuation of BTG's business and the need to maintain its independence, impartiality and integrity. Independence is necessary in that an industrial enterprise might seek to gain control of BTG for specific purposes relating to a particular sphere of business. Impartiality is necessary in that BTG must plainly properly represent the interests of the inventor, developer, applyer and exploiter. Integrity is necessary in that, in the sort of negotiations that take place when concluding a contract on intellectual property, it is necessary to go into much detail, not only on the technical and scientific aspects, but on the economic, business, market and financial aspects of the deal. That is a matter on which, at present, parties negotiating with BTG can rely on its total integrity to safeguard the confidentiality of their interests.
5.15 pm
No formal undertaking has been given to the House, nor was such an assurance given by Ministers in Committee. Furthermore, no formal undertakings have been given by the Minister to BTG's council in reply to the representations that it has made in that respect. The Government have shown an extraordinarily wooden attitude. They must have some reason for failing to give comfort and reassurance, but what is it? I suspect that it has two parts. First, the Government totally fail to understand BTG's role and, secondly, they simply want to maximise BTG's selling price, perhaps under pressure from the Treasury, which plainly has a duty to urge the importance of getting a decent price.
The Government's failure to understand BTG's strategic role was amply evidenced on Second Reading when Ministers compared the size of BTG's investment in research and development with total United Kingdom research and development and Government expenditure on research and development. However, that is not BTG's business. It is not primarily a financier of research and development, basic, applied or industrial, but primarily a technological transfer organisation operating at the stage of patenting and licensing, and when research immediately surrounding the protection of the intellectual property of new inventions is developed and applied. That is necessarily a small part of overall expenditure by Government or industry, but it is a strategic part, and it is that strategic role that the Government have failed to grasp.
We must ask where we are in relation to that background. Hon. Members have talked about the need, indeed the possibility, of securing the participation of universities and research councils in BTG's future functioning and control. Only yesterday, the Minister met representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and he has not yet replied to a letter from the British Technology Group seeking his agreement to its putting together a consortium bid. It should be remembered that, since Second Reading, we have been

stressing the importance of putting together an arrangement for the future management and control of the company that would secure its future.
Yesterday, the universities, through the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, demonstrated their willingness to take part in a consortium. They have an important role to play in the future of BTG as, along with research councils, they are the principal source of the intellectual property rights whose exploitation it is BTG's business to manage. Therefore, whoever runs BTG in the future will gain substantially from the participation and goodwill not merely of the universities and research councils but of the scientific community, and the formal presence of universities in the control of BTG would bring that participation about.
It is worth spending a little time studying the structure of the consortium that might emerge. It is my understanding that none of the parties—BTG, the Department of Trade and Industry and the universities —have started talking about numbers. Perhaps hon. Members, who are not engaged in the negotiations, can make a useful contribution by talking about numbers and the structure of control that would emerge.
The different parties that might be involved are trusts and foundations that are interested in research and have, and will continue to play, a valuable part in financing research and its industrial applications. They include the Nuffield Foundation and the Wolfson Foundation. Another group of institutions that offered a suitable element in the structure, given the financial record of BTG, and which would certainly be willing participants in an appropriate consortium, consists of a number of financial institutions whose present investment schemes are so large that BTG would be a relatively small but important part of their overall investment strategy, as it would open up, and give them familiarity with, a wide range of high technology venture capital developments.
I understand that the results of soundings of financial institutions have shown no lack of willingness. If the Government were ready just to consider open bids, there would be no difficulty in getting a bid that would financially exploit the assets of BTG in the ways that we were talking about earlier. Obviously, the number of financial institutions that would be prepared to participate in the continuation of BTG in its present business would be smaller, but there would be some, and they would be wise institutions at that.
The third element would certainly be some employee participation—for example, through employee share ownership plans or management buy-outs—so that the staff of BTG would have a continuing interest in the operation and success of the company.
The final partners will be the universities themselves. In such an arrangement, it is quite possible to ensure that no party has more than 20 per cent. of the controlling shares of BTG and that a majority of the shareholders would be parties interested in the continuation and development of BTG's present line of business. Therefore, within the financial control of BTG, one could secure the guarantee that BTG would continue as a technology transfer organisation operating in the United Kingdom to support and exploit the results of British academic and research council research.
The question is whether that is too narrow a range and whether it would cramp too much BTG's style in relation to foreign Governments, foreign universities and foreign


industrial companies. I do not think that it would, but nor do I have any great objection in principle to one 20 per cent. or two 10 per cents. coming from some overseas financial institutions. However, it would be downright wrong if overseas institutions that would not have been acceptable had they been United Kingdom institutions were to invest in BTG. An example of this is an industrial bank with controlling interests over a wide range of activities in Germany or Japan, which might not be an industrial company but which has such strong industrial interests that it is interchangeable with the concept of an industrial company in this country.
If such a partner were willing to invest in BTG, there would be no difficulty in the trusts and foundations or the financial institutions finding ready money to put up. The usual arrangements would apply in the case of employee share ownership plans or a management buy-out. However, the universities are plainly in a difficult position because they are strapped for cash—they ain't got any. The educational investments that some of the wealthier Oxbridge colleges have made, and are making, are desperately needed for the support of education, given the financial straits to which the Government have reduced the universities. Therefore, it may well be necessary to look for some arrangement whereby the universities gain a proper share in the financial control of BTG without having to put ready money up front when the deal is made. For example, there could be an arrangement whereby the university interests could be financed by a loan from the Government, which could be repaid by earnings on that slice of BTG equity over a period. The universities would gain no immediate financial benefit from their share ownership, but would have financial control. The Government would not get quite as much cash initially, but would secure a viable arrangement for the future of BTG.
That is one of many possible formulae that could be mooted in negotiations. I would not expect the Minister either to endorse any formula in particular, or to rule out of hand the possibility of meeting the requirement, set out in some of the amendments, for the Government to make some such arrangement. These are practical arrangements and they are being considered by the separate parties. Negotiations have not yet begun on them and the Government could commit themselves, in principle, to some arrangement that would meet the misgivings that have been expressed so well by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
If that were to happen, and if BTG were to continue in its present business, that would by no means exhaust possibilities for its future development. We have talked about the role that we would envisage BTG continuing to play in the private sector—in the future development of research and its applications and in technology transfer in the United Kingdom. I shall give two examples of that. At present, BTG provides a modest amount of project finance for individual projects, for sums up to, at most, £1 million or so. That is in the nature of launch aid for new technology development. The principle of launch aid originated and still operates in the aircraft industry, where it involves hundreds of millions of pounds. There is a huge gap between the level of launch aid that BTG and venture capital organisations can tackle and the level of such assistance for which the Government have to take responsibility in the aircraft industry. It seems fairly unlikely that private financial institutions will bridge that

gap, although they may hope to move up the scale. Arrangements could be introduced to encourage them to do so, and we have suggested some.
5.30 pm
However, it would be valuable if a public sector organisation could help to fill that gap. BTG could usefully play that role in the future. It has the management capability, the technical knowledge and the experience of the marketplace to enable it to operate on a very much bigger scale of project finance than hitherto. A developed BTG might also improve and extend the arrangements that are made between the universities, the research councils and industry in the exploitation of new areas of research, such as the Link programme. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said that decisions on the exclusion of BTG from the Alvey programme had set it on the right path. I totally disagree because if BTG had participated in Alvey and Esprit, we might well have achieved much more effective results.

Dr. Hampson: My point was that because BTG is a Government body or, one might say, a nationalised industry, it is thus debarred from programmes in which private sector companies participate. It has been prevented from doing deals in France and Spain because it has been seen as a Government or a public body. The world would be BTG's oyster if it were free from Government shackles which, to my surprise, the hon. Gentleman wants to maintain.

Dr. Bray: The nationalised industries were not generally excluded from participation in, for example, the European Community research programmes. Several such organisations have taken part in those programmes, but BTG was not allowed to do so simply because of a doctrinaire act on the part of the Government—

Dr. Hampson: There was no state involvement in Alvey.

Dr. Bray: The programmes in which British Steel has been engaged in the European Community would have been entirely open to nationalised industries, and were, indeed, used by them. It would have been possible for BTG to do so but for its arbitrary exclusion by the Department of Trade and Industry.
If we are looking for a more effective and balanced way to build a bridge between university research and industrial application, let us consider the work of the science and engineering research council, which spends £200 million each year on new engineering research. That must be the biggest single engineering research programme in the country. If there were appropriate partners, it would be reasonable to say to those grant applicants, "If your programme is successful, what lines of exploitation are open to you? Have you thought about this? Have you talked to potential partners about how they would take over, carry through, support and learn from your research? Do you have an industrial partner?"
Sometimes, the reply would be, "No, our research is into an enabling technology that would serve a wide range of people but we do not have a specific partner." To that, one would say, "Fair enough." Others would say, "No, we do not have an industrial partner because no British firm is engaged in this sector. Developing and applying our research would require a new British enterprise." Others


would say, "No, we do not have an industrial partner because British industry is too dim to understand or apply the research on which we want to work."
At present, there is no way in which the science and engineering research council can say, "Come off it. If you cannot establish those lines of communication, perhaps we can help you or perhaps BTG or someone else could help you." We would need to set up a number of options by which the research community could shop around to discover the most appropriate industrial partners. In the end, however, it might be appropriate for a research council to say, "If, despite all these possible channels of support, there is absolutely no possibility of industrial application of your applied research, should we really be carrying out such research in Britain, given that our comparative advantage from its exploitation is so low?"
For all their talk about efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of research, the Government have dodged such tough decisions on science policy. If one is to be really efficient, one needs a degree and range of interventionist instruments to ensure that those bridges are built.
We should have liked to see BTG develop in that direction in the public sector, while continuing and extending its present activities. We should have liked it to expand into the work on technology transfer and industrial research and development and their application that, at present, it cannot undertake. We have said that if BTG is privatised, we would constitute a successor company to carry out the range of functions and operations that we regard as necessary for this country's industrial development. Whether and how that is carried out will obviously depend upon the nature of the BTG that emerges not only from this Bill but from the way in which it is implemented by the Government in any time that is left to them in this Parliament.
Our amendments are important, not only in terms of whatever negotiations follow in the next few weeks, but in terms of the spirit of the new BTG and the direction in which it moves and is allowed to move by the Government in the years to come. It is a die which, once cast, cannot be taken back. Therefore, I urge hon. Members and Ministers carefully to consider all the points that have been raised so powerfully by hon. Members of all parties in support of this group of amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): I am grateful to my hon Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), and to the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) for their contributions to this long and interesting debate on what is clearly the key part of the Bill. I understand the concerns that are uppermost in the minds of those hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East, and the Government recognise that the amendments are an expression of that concern.
We note hon. Members' anxiety that BTG's activities in technology transfer should continue after privatisation. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not want

me to become involved in a debate on the merits or demerits of privatisation, although I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West for his stout defence of privatisation and its merits. I hope that we shall have time for a Third Reading debate, which would be the appropriate point for me to outline why I think that BTG should be privatised. However, that is not the central argument of the current debate.
Hon. Members of all parties want to ensure the continuation of BTG's activities. There is an ideological divide about whether that is best ensured in the private or the public sector, but we are united in wanting to ensure its continuation. I shall have to choose my words carefully, of course, but I hope that what I say this evening will reassure my hon. Friends.
I recognise the deep seriousness with which my hon. Friends and Opposition Members approach this subject. Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East that I agree with the general sentiment underlying the new clause. However, it is not necessary to enshrine it in the Bill, for reasons which I shall make clear in my speech.
Hon. Members may wish to know that these matters were discussed at some length in Committee. I know that some of my hon. Friends were not able to be members of that Committee. In Committee I sought, during some lengthy debates, to give reassurances on the very subject dealt with in the new clause. I shall give similar reassurances today, but I hope that I shall give them in language which, while carefully chosen, reassures my hon. Friends even more than they have been reassured hitherto. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends who served on the Committee were reassured by what I said, and I hope now to reassure other hon. Friends on Report.
I made it clear in Committee, and I repeat now, that the Government wish to see the British Technology Group privatised in a way that leaves a good prospect that BTG's current technology transfer activities will continue. That has always been part of the Government's publicly stated objective for the privatisation. We take that objective seriously. The House can rest assured that it will be uppermost in our minds in determining the exact form of the sale.
New clauses 1 and 5 are not dissimilar in their general intention. To put it in a nutshell, new clause 1 asks us to respond to the anxieties that have been expressed by enshrining in the Bill an assurance that BTG's current business activities will continue after privatisation. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to preserve BTG's independence and enable it to maintain and extend its technology transfer services.
First, I repeat what I said in Committee, although I shall not rest on it. I said:
The Government will take those anxieties into account when deciding the form of privatisation and whether safeguards are necessary in the articles or the agreement of sale".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7 March 1991; c. 150.]
Since then matters have not stood still. We have actively considered what form of conditions of sale might be appropriate. Further to what I said in Committee, we have moved a stage further. We are actively considering the conditions of sale which will be necessary to meet the anxieties of my hon. Friends and those which will be appropriate to meet the Government's objectives which, as I have said, are good prospects that BTG's activities will continue.
We have now decided whom to appoint as legal advisers on the sale and shall shortly request them to consider the terms and possible conditions of, for example, the articles of association. So we have now moved to the process of appointing legal advisers. They will advise us on how we can frame the articles of association to meet the anxieties that have been expressed in the debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister said that he would be careful in what he said and we have been listening carefully. First, will he make clear that there is no semantic point in the difference between "very good" and "best" prospects? There is a great difference in practice. Secondly, have the Minister's thoughts—which he says have progressed since Committee—included or ruled out the possibility of the Government enshrining in legislation some of the conditions which the House has expressed a wish to see in legislation?

Mr. Leigh: On the second point, I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I shall go into the matter in more detail later in my speech, but we do not think it appropriate—and it has not been done before—to enshrine in an enabling Bill such as this the type of conditions in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.
I had to use the words "a good prospect" of the continuation of BTG's activities—

Sir Trevor Skeet: It is nothing.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend says that it is nothing. I do not think that it is nothing. Neither I nor any other Minister could go further than the words "a good prospect". I could not possibly give an absolute undertaking now that BTG's activities will continue in exactly the same way as at present.

Sir Trevor Skeet: My hon. Friend will realise that 8,200 patents rest in BTG and that if there is a sale they will all be assigned to the new buyer. It will be up to the new buyer to decide what to do with them. It could be very much a breach of confidentiality that they should be assigned and, of course, it could be against the interests of the inventors. I appreciate that the inventors have passed on their rights to BTG, but does my hon. Friend realise that not to include anything in the substantive legislation could prejudice their interests in the field?

Mr. Leigh: I realise precisely the point that my hon. Friend makes. He reiterates a point which is uppermost in my mind—the integrity, as well as the independence, of BTG when it is privatised. There are ways in which the integrity, independence and critical mass of BTG can be ensured. If my hon. Friend will give me time to develop my thoughts—

Sir Trevor Skeet: Plenty of time.

Mr. Leigh: Indeed, we have plenty of time. I hope that by the time that I sit down I shall have reassured my hon. Friend that, while it is not appropriate and has never been enshrined in legislation, we intend to privatise the organisation in such a way that its integrity and independence are preserved.

Dr. Hampson: We are touching on some important matters. I have argued the need for a Government golden share. In the past such a provision has been enshrined in

legislation. Is my hon. Friend the Minister saying that the legal advice that he is commissioning and the framework of the conditions of sale will cover the possibility of golden shares without the need for legislation?

Mr. Leigh: I shall deal with the question of a golden share later. A golden share may, indeed, be necessary and it may have to be mentioned in legislation. I cannot predict that at this stage. But in previous privatisations the issue of a golden share has arisen later in the proceedings. I do not rule it out at this stage.

Mr. Steen: I hope that this comment will be helpful. My hon. Friend can have the best legal advice in the country. As a Minister he has access to the best lawyers that he can choose. Why does not he have that advice on Report? Why is the advice still being obtained? Why cannot it be put before the House so that we know what will happen?

Mr. Leigh: This is a fundamental philosophical point. Should we enshrine these matters in legislation or, knowing what shape we want BTG to have and that we wish it to continue its activities, and as we want to put together a sale which will ensure that those activities continue, should we not wait until we know the nature of the buyers of the organisation? I emphasise the word "buyers", to which we might return in a moment. When we know the nature of the buyers will be the moment to frame the articles of association with the advice of our lawyers and, if necessary, to consider a golden share to ensure that our wishes are carried out.

Dr. Bray: It depends on who "we" are. If "we" are the Government, they can decide to do that at any stage that they choose. But today "we" are the House of Commons. This is the last occasion on which the House will be able to include the requirement which Members on both sides of the House urge upon the Government.

Mr. Leigh: I do not know whether it is in order to mention another place. Hon. Members would not want me to say that we are simply waiting until the Bill goes to another place to give more details. I am not saying that for a moment.
If hon. Members will allow me to proceed, they will see that I have a form of words which I hope will reassure them that we intend to take their anxieties into account. It may be appropriate later to talk of articles of association and a golden share. Let me proceed to utter those words. Before I finish, I want to talk in some detail about the interesting meeting that I had yesterday with the university vice-chancellors because that meeting and what arose from it is pertinent and I have not yet had an opportunity to acquaint the House with those details.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to press the Minister once more about the objective and why it is not possible for him, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, to say that the Government's objective is the "best" prospect of keeping the present activities of BTG as opposed to "very good". That is an important difference.

Mr. Leigh: Clearly we have a duty to the general public which was outlined in the words that I used repeatedly in Committee and which I repeat now with Treasury advice. We are clearly under a duty to maximise returns to the taxpayer and I would be failing in my duty to the general public if I did not mention that. But we have always said


that that must be consistent with the good prospect of the continuation of the BTG's activities. I have said that many times, and I do not think that I can add anything further.
Let me give the sort of conditions that we are considering which I hope will be of interest to hon. Members and which I do not think I dealt with in detail in Committee. They include measures to prevent a purchaser from asset stripping, whether through selling the assets or through collecting the revenue from existing patents without further investment—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central referred to patents—and from ceasing to carry on the technology transfer activities of the BTG. One way in which we could do so might be through articles of association or, alternatively, through the sale contract with the buyer. We are also looking carefully at whether it would be appropriate and effective for the Government to retain a special share for a limited period so as to ensure that changes are not made to the fundamental business without the Government's consent. That would be an entirely reasonable way of proceeding.
We are also aware that some believe that the sale of BTG to a commercial or manufacturing concern might deter other customers in the same technology sectors from using the BTG. That was a point of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North. That is also a point which we will take into account in deciding the form of the sale and any other possible safeguards. As I said in Committee:
The detailed wording of such articles is best left until we are clearer about the form of sale and the prospective purchaser."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7 March 1991; c. 153.]
To do otherwise and decide now what restrictions to put in place could prejudice the prospect of a sale and the potential proceeds. We will first want to see who the prospective purchasers are and what their plans are for the BTG may itself be the most effective guarantee for the group's future.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The Minister says that the identity of the purchasers will be a guarantee of the group's future, but what about those who purchase from the purchasers and those who purchase from them? He cannot guarantee the group's future if the purchasers decide, as a private organisation, to sell their business.

Mr. Leigh: I cannot give an undertaking now about what will happen in five, 10, or 15 years' time. I cannot commit the Government or this Parliament to what might happen in future. But I can say that if the kind of sale that some people have mentioned is put together that might be extremely unlikely. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is patient, he may see some light descending on that.
I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have already met to discuss this and other issues with the BTG's chairman, with representatives of BTG's employees, with inventors and with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Contrary to what the Opposition may assert, we are listening to the views of interested parties. The House may also wish to know that I had a constructive meeting with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals at which they voiced their interest in seeing the BTG continue as a strong commercial entity. We hope to take forward in further discussions the universities' interest in the future of the privatised BTG.
That is the constructive way to take forward concerns about the role of the privatised BTG—in practical discussions on the form of the sale rather than heavy-handed amendments to the enabling Bill.
New clause 1 suggests that it will be necessary to insert special conditions in the articles to achieve a satisfactory outcome. However, a misunderstanding over the timing of the successor company may have led to the new clause being tabled. It is the Government's intention to have a short interval between the appointment of the successor company and the date it is sold. That makes the clause unnecessary, and for that reason it would not be appropriate to include the new clause in the Bill. I had an opportunity to discuss the matter with my hon. Friends this morning and I am grateful to them for tabling the new clause because it gives me the opportunity to clarify the Government's position. The new clause may be technically flawed, but it has performed a useful purpose.
New clause 5 takes a similar approach, but it is also based on misunderstanding. It would, in effect, put a duty on the Secretary of State to oblige the successor company and its new private sector owners to take steps to preserve its independence and, for good measure, tell the successor company how to go about its business. How can such a statutory imposition, which has no time limit, practically be applied to an independent private sector organisation? The Bill's fundamental purpose is to free the BTG from statutory and Government control. It will be for the new owners to decide exactly how to go about running the business and what areas to expand into.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's latter comments increase my concern. It is suggested that there would be no continuing condition upon any prospective purchaser or purchasers. As I said to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), it is the fact that it is a time-expired guarantee that worries some of us. There is no on-going guarantee. I hope that the Minister will think again about his answer to the new clause.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman probably was not listening to what I said about conditions of sale and the articles of association, and mention has been made today of the golden share.

Mr. Rees: I am interested to hear about the role of the legal adviser. The Government will tell the legal adviser what they want, but how he translates it in practice is a different matter. At what stage in the process would the articles of association be drawn up and published?

Mr. Leigh: If the Bill meets with the approval of the House and the other place, we will initially be talking of a vesting day. This is an enabling Bill. A successor company will be formed which will be entirely publicly owned, presumably in the hands of named civil servants. At that stage, the Secretary of State will decide how it should be privatised. Discussions have already started and will continue and it may well be appropriate to talk in terms of articles of association not now but far closer to that date, which may not be until the autumn.

Mr. Rees: Will the articles of association come before the House at any time in some appropriate fashion?

Mr. Leigh: No, I do not think that they will. As I have tried to explain, the appropriate time for drawing up the articles of association is when the Government have a clear


idea of who the purchasers are and what is necessary to retain the critical mass, independence and integrity of the BTG—an aim in which we are all interested.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am trying to follow the Minister's argument. What he seems to be saying is that we should identify the buyers and then determine what conditions are appropriate, by which time the Bill will have gone well beyond this House and the other place. We are being asked to sign a blank prospectus.

Mr. Leigh: I do not think that it is a blank prospectus. If my hon. Friend had listened to what I said, he would know that I tried to explain in some detail the Government's intention in privatising the company. Our intention is to ensure a good prospect of continuing the BTG's activities. For the moment, he has to take my word for it. It would be unique at this stage in an enabling Bill to enshrine articles of association. Given the nature of the BTG that we want to exist in the private sector and the fact that we want its activities to continue in the future, it clearly makes sense to ensure a form of sale that guarantees that. At that stage the articles of association can be framed. I do not see how I would assist that process if I suggested to the House that we should lay down rigid articles of association now. That would not be helpful and it would not achieve what is desired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North.

6 pm

Mr. Alex Carlile: All the lawyers in this House and the many hon. Members who are involved with companies will be aware that in virtually every instance the articles of association are prepared on the instructions of the promoters of the company. Can the Minister name a single instance in which the articles of association have been prepared in consultation with, or as a result of knowing the identity of, the purchasers of the company? That is an extraordinary new doctrine. Where does the Minister get it from?

Mr. Leigh: There is nothing extraordinary about it. Nothing that I have suggested today is unusual. We are proceeding in exactly the way in which we have privatised other businesses. I have already outlined when it would be appropriate to frame the articles of association.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that my hon. Friends understand that, although my hon. Friend is advocating a type of blank prospectus, the Government are extremely competent: they will get it right. My hon. Friend is asking us to have complete confidence in him as the Minister to put the articles of association in place once he knows who the buyer will be. I believe that my hon. Friend's message to the House is that it must have confidence in the Government. Is that correct?

Mr. Leigh: Yes. I am not asking for a blank cheque. When my hon. Friend reads Hansard, he will be reassured by what I said. He will appreciate that I have given certain undertakings and commitments. I hope that he will be prepared to accept them and the serious manner in which I have approached them.
It will be clear to the House why we do not wish to see a duty of the kind envisaged in amendment Nos. 5 and 6, which would require the Secretary of State to report on his plans for guaranteeing the BTG's future independence, impartiality and integrity. The Secretary of State would be

prevented from vesting the property, rights and liabilities in a successor company—which is the first step towards privatisation—until he had published those plans. Clearly such a duty to report immediately in advance of the Bill taking effect would tie our hands before we knew what was really necessary. We do not want to place unnecessary burdens on the new company. It is meant to be a private sector company, free to operate without onerous constraints.
The Opposition have consistently tried to suggest that we have not consulted the universities on the proposed privatisation. In fact, we did consult the universities through the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in 1988. Only a small minority of the respondents—less than 20 per cent.—favoured the Opposition's option, which is that the BTG should remain as it is. About 20 per cent. of the universities responding favoured a sale to a commercial or financial institution, while 10 per cent. favoured a sale to the BTG's existing management and 50 per cent. wanted to see the BTG established as a private foundation or trust with objectives linked to university research.
Hon. Members may also be interested to know that I met with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals yesterday to hear its views on the privatisation of the BTG. It was a helpful, constructive, and, from the viewpoint of both parties, highly satisfactory meeting.
The collective concern of the committee was that BTG should be a lively, commercial business in the private sector. Those are not my views but the committee's—and I hope that my hon. Friends will heed that as it is crucial. The committee wants the BTG to continue to exploit the fruits of academic research, which is entirely consistent with the Government's objective in the proposed sale.
The committee also argued for a "small, not negligible" stake in the privatised company. The Government recognise the substantial and valuable input of universities to other progress and prosperity of BTG over the years. BTG in turn has been, and I hope will continue to be, an important outlet for universities research in technology. We wish to see this partnership continue after privatisation. That is why I gave the committee an unconditional assurance that its views and proposals will be carefully considered and will be taken on board when we finally decide how the BTG will be privatised.
My hon. Friends may wish to know that, when the committee came to see me yesterday, far from opposing the privatisation of the BTG, it showed its interests in acquiring a "small, not negligible" stake in it. In the light of that attitude, I should be interested to know where that leaves the Opposition. We had a lengthy speech from the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, and I do not want to put words in his mouth, but he seemed to suggest that if the BTG was to be privatised the Opposition's favoured option would be for the universities to have a stake in the new organisation. That is certainly what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has said on a previous occasion.
If a consortium was formed that consisted of a stake held by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, a stake held by a management buy-out and one held by financial institutions—assuming there was a limit on foreign ownership—we may well—

Mr. Steen: That sounds good.

Mr. Leigh: I cannot predict the final outcome, but my hon. Friends will have heard what I said. They appear to like it.

Mr. Roy Beggs: rose—

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber, and, if he will forgive me, I shall not give way.
I hope that I have given the reassurances that my hon. Friends need, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East will withdraw the new clause.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: My hon. Friends and I accept my hon. Friend's assurances and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask for a vote on new clause 5, which appears in the same group of amendments?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in seeking a vote if he moves the new clause formally.

New Clause 5

INDEPENDENCE OF THE SUCCESSOR COMPANY

'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the successor company shall take such steps as are necessary to preserve the independence of the British Technology Group to enable it to maintain and extend its services in the field of technology transfer.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 260.

Division No. 111]
[6.07 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Crowther, Stan


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Margaret
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beggs, Roy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beith, A. J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eadie, Alexander


Benton, Joseph
Eastham, Ken


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blair, Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fearn, Ronald


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Flynn, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buckley, George J.
Foster, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galloway, George


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clelland, David
George, Bruce





Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gordon, Mildred
Murphy, Paul


Gould, Bryan
Nellist, Dave


Graham, Thomas
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Hara, Edward


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Neill, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hain, Peter
Parry, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter L.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Radice, Giles


Home Robertson, John
Randall, Stuart


Hood, Jimmy
Redmond, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howells, Geraint
Reid, Dr John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rooney, Terence


Illsley, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ingram, Adam
Rowlands, Ted


Johnston, Sir Russell
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAllion, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McCartney, Ian
Snape, Peter


Macdonald, Calum A.
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Walley, Joan


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wareing, Robert N.


Marek, Dr John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Meale, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Michael, Alun
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Alex Carlile and


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Allason, Rupert
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Amos, Alan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arbuthnot, James
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Atkins, Robert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Boscawen, Hon Robert






Boswell, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hill, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hind, Kenneth


Bowis, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bright, Graham
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunter, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Irvine, Michael


Burns, Simon
Irving, Sir Charles


Burt, Alistair
Jack, Michael


Butler, Chris
Jackson, Robert


Butterfill, John
Janman, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby


Carrington, Matthew
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cash, William
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Key, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Kilfedder, James


Churchill, Mr
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knapman, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Colvin, Michael
Knox, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Latham, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cope, Rt Hon John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cormack, Patrick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Couchman, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cran, James
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Dicks, Terry
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dorrell, Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dover, Den
Maclean, David


Dunn, Bob
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Durant, Sir Anthony
Madel, David


Dykes, Hugh
Malins, Humfrey


Eggar, Tim
Mans, Keith


Emery, Sir Peter
Maples, John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Marland, Paul


Evennett, David
Marlow, Tony


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Favell, Tony
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fishburn, John Dudley
Miller, Sir Hal


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mills, Iain


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mitchell, Sir David


Franks, Cecil
Moate, Roger


Fry, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Gale, Roger
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Morrison, Sir Charles


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Goodlad, Alastair
Moss, Malcolm


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mudd, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grist, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patnick, Irvine


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)





Patten, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Summerson, Hugo


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Thurnham, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Robert
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rost, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Walden, George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walters, Sir Dennis


Sayeed, Jonathan
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, Sir John


Shelton, Sir William
Whitney, Ray


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Wilshire, David


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Speed, Keith
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steen, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

TARGET INVESTMENT LIMIT FOR GOVERNMENT SHAREHOLDING

Dr. Bray: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 16, at end insert:—
`(4A) The Secretary of State shall not set a target investment limit of less than 50.01 per cent. of the total voting rights until a period of at least five years has elapsed from the appointed day.'.
The amendment seeks to provide, by means of a golden share, a mechanism by which the assurances and words of comfort that the Minister offered could be enforced. He gave a long list of considerations that might—or might not —be embodied in the conditions for sale of BTG. Those related to matters raised on Second Reading, in Committee or earlier this afternoon, and covered most aspects of the types of safeguard that have been suggested. Nevertheless, the Minister could not give a firm assurance that he would provide a legislative guarantee so that the Government could ensure that such conditions were observed in the successor company.
The golden share is one mechanism by which such conditions could be secured. It was advocated by some Conservative Members, and we shall press it in the amendment. The Minister's long list of conditions for sale was rather like the prayer of St. Augustine—"Lord, make me good, but not yet." We seek the Minister's salvation, so we shall press the amendment to a vote.
We welcome yesterday's discussions between representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and


Principals and the Minister, but the use that the hon. Gentleman made of the meeting was a little unfair. The representatives of the CVCP were working within the framework of Government policy and the provisions of the Bill. They were trying to secure a settlement by making within that framework a constructive proposal for securing important objectives with regard to BTG's future role in relation to technology transfer and the universities' and research councils' own research. The discussion related not only to the small but significant shareholding that the universities sought, but to the whole nature of the consortium which they advocated and which the Minister adumbrated as something that might emerge from the forthcoming discussions and consideration. We hope that those discussions will be successful, but we believe that a long-stop is needed. An amendment providing for a golden share would be a firm way of securing that end, at least in the important early years.
I have no wish to delay our proceedings, so I shall be happy to proceed to a Division on the amendment at the convenience of the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 253.

Division No. 112]
[6.25 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Dalyell, Tam


Alton, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Armstrong, Hilary
Dixon, Don


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alexander


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Fearn, Ronald


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Margaret
Flannery, Martin


Beggs, Roy
Flynn, Paul


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Derek


Benton, Joseph
Fraser, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Fyfe, Maria


Blair, Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Boateng, Paul
Galloway, George


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gordon, Mildred


Buckley, George J.
Graham, Thomas


Caborn, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Hain, Peter


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Haynes, Frank


Clelland, David
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Crowther, Stan
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)





Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L.


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Johnston, Sir Russell
Randall, Stuart


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, Martin


Lambie, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lamond, James
Reid, Dr John


Leadbitter, Ted
Richardson, Jo


Lewis, Terry
Robertson, George


Livingstone, Ken
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooney, Terence


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McLeish, Henry
Short, Clare


Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Madden, Max
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wareing, Robert N.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morley, Elliot
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Winnick, David


Murphy, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Nellist, Dave
Wray, Jimmy


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, William



O'Hara, Edward
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Ken Eastham.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Allason, Rupert
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Robert
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baldry, Tony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Buck, Sir Antony


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Budgen, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Burns, Simon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Chris


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, W.
Carrington, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cash, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul






Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Churchill, Mr
Knox, David


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Latham, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Colvin, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Cormack, Patrick
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Couchman, James
Lord, Michael


Cran, James
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Day, Stephen
Maclean, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dicks, Terry
Madel, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Maples, John


Dunn, Bob
Marland, Paul


Durant, Sir Anthony
Marlow, Tony


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evennett, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mates, Michael


Favell, Tony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mills, Iain


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Sir David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Moate, Roger


Franks, Cecil
Monro, Sir Hector


Fry, Peter
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Goodlad, Alastair
Moss, Malcolm


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grist, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patnick, Irvine


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hicks. Robert (Cornwall SE)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Price, Sir David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Irvine, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Irving, Sir Charles
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Jack, Michael
Rost, Peter


Jackson, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Janman, Tim
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Hon Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Key, Robert
Shelton, Sir William


Kilfedder, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)





Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speed, Keith
Walters, Sir Dennis


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, Sir John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stevens, Lewis
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wilshire, David


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Nicholas


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tracey, Richard



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S.1

Dr. Moonie: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 37, at end insert:—
`(3A) On the appointed day the successor company shall provide for each of the employees of the Board or the Corporation and any body representing those employees a statement providing for the continuation of their employment and pension rights as previously enjoyed.'.
Most of the debate, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, has concentrated—rightly—on the principle of how the company will operate in the private sector and, indeed, on the principle of whether it should be privatised at all. We have touched briefly on the rights of employees in the company.
Although it is not a large company, BTG is a reasonably prosperous one. It has a substantial pension fund whose value is actuarily in excess of the pension requirements of its current employees. In view of the lack of safeguards from Ministers about the future, and the vagueness of the promises that have been made, we are not satisfied that employees' interests will be protected properly under the Bill in its present form. We know of instances in the private sector of pension funds being raided, by means of one subterfuge or another, to dilute their value and to use the surplus for other purposes, and we consider that unacceptable.
In Committee, the Minister said that he was not prepared to allow such raids in any form. He may now wish to say something about the company's articles of association, or to throw further light on the position to reassure us about the principle. In view of the relatively light discussion that took place in Committee, however, we thought that it would be worth while to table the amendment on Report, so that the Minister could confirm the impression that we had been given that employees' rights and guarantees would be enshrined in the Bill during the sale of the company.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I support the amendment, but, like many hon. Members, I am disturbed by the actions of other privatised companies. Assurances were given during the passage of other Bills, but


unfortunately the results often damaged the interests of pensioners and future pensioners of those privatised companies.
The pensions business has gone through a period of great turbulence. In the 1980s, pension funds in Britain rose in value from about £50 billion to £220 billion. During the first year of this decade they dropped in value by nearly 10 per cent.—a greater drop in value than occurred after the stock exchange crash of 1987.
What has happened to the vast surpluses that have been amassed by the pension companies? A survey by the National Association of Pension Funds showed that in 48 per cent. of schemes surpluses were applied to provide contribution holidays for the companies and that in only 22 per cent. of schemes did employees enjoy a reduction in their contributions. To a large extent, those surpluses have been used to help shareholders rather than pensioners.
In Committee the Minister gave a number of assurances that sounded very convincing. He referred to the fact that surplus pension scheme funds are now regulated by regulations made by the Secretary of State for Social Security under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Modification) Regulations 1990, which formed part of the Social Security Act 1990. He also said that under the 1988 Act a surplus was permitted to be dealt with in four ways: by making payments to the employer; by suspending or reducing for up to five years the contributions of the employer or employees; by improving existing benefits or providing new benefits; or in such other ways as prescribed by the Inland Revenue.
The legislation is in place. Sadly, however, the experience of similar privatised companies shows that a mockery has been made of the legal framework. The worst example is British Telecom. An early-day motion was tabled deploring what was said to be the unlawful action of British Telecom in reducing its contribution to the British Telecommunications staff superannuation scheme from the August 1989 payment without any actuarial certificate of disposable surplus. It had a contribution holiday without that certificate having been provided. A worse allegation is that British Telecom had no serious talks with its staff before that was done. The early-day motion asked for meaningful improvements to the benefits of members of the scheme, if any real surplus accrues.
A scandal involving a much larger group of people than those employed by BTG is the British Steel scheme, which covers 100,000 pensioners and deferred pensioners. It may be said that only 188 employees are involved in the BTG scheme. However, the actuarial surplus amounts to at least £3·8 million and may be as large as £13 million. I do not intend to repeat the Committee discussion. However, that is a very large sum when one takes into account the small number of BTG employees.
After the British Steel Bill was passed, the corporation discovered that it had a surplus of £600 million. British Steel disposed of that surplus in a way that greatly angered its 100,000 existing and deferred pensioners. British Steel has set aside half this surplus for the benefit of future pensioners—their present employees—and widows. As for the remainder, I have a letter from the director of British Steel who says that half of the original surplus has gone towards reducing the ongoing costs to the company. That money is not being applied for the benefit of future

pensioners; instead, it is being used in the same way as British Telecom used its surplus—to reduce its part of the cost of the pension scheme. That is wholly against the spirit of the legislation that privatised those companies.
If the amendment is not accepted, a similar mistake will be made. This surplus of £3·8 million, or possibly £13 million, may be regarded as an inducement to a future owner to take over BTG and use it in a way that damages the financial interests of the employees.

Mr. Leigh: Although I understand and share the Opposition's concern for BTG's employees, I assure them that amendment No. 3 is unnecessary, as these matters are already provided for by the Bill as drafted. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of schedule 1 to the Bill, notably paragraph 4(1)(b), make it palpably clear that vesting under clause 1 will not affect any of the corporation's or the board's existing agreements, transactions or anything else, and this includes employment contracts, pensions and redundancy arrangements, whether or not they are in writing. The only effect of the Bill in this respect will be to substitute the successor company as the employer.

Dr. Moonie: In view of the Minister's clarification of the point, for which I am grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Dr. Moonie: We have had several long and interesting debates on the Bill, starting with Second Reading, then in Committee and earlier today. I pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expressed their concern about the future security of the British Technology Group in the marketplace and its future independence, integrity and impartiality.
In an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) I referred to the attitude of the BTG management to privatisation and their support for it. Having considered what I said then, I should not like it to be thought for a moment that I intended to impugn the integrity of the BTG management, or its chief executive. I was attempting to demonstrate that no one who is involved in an organisation can be completely impartial when a decision is being taken over its future.
When we wound up the debate on the new clauses the Under-Secretary of State appeared to shift his ground. He said that he was not prepared to give the best assurances over BTG's future, but initially he was prepared to give very good assurances. I was a little concerned when the very good assurances became only good assurances later in his speech. I listened with growing apprehension in case the good assurances became only reasonable assurances and then, perhaps, fair assurances, since he gradually wriggled out of his original fairly generous commitment. I am sure that that was just the form of words that the Minister was using and that he is genuinely concerned about the future of BTG after privatisation.
In Committee we made much play of the length of time it took for messages to get from the Government's brain to any of their effector organs. Clearly, the long Easter recess


has allowed that message slowly to percolate through and now we have at least some assurance from the Minister that the Government will be looking carefully at the articles of association.
I must look back at our debates in Committee as I am sure that at one stage the Under-Secretary of State was scathing about writing safeguards into the articles of association for the company since future managements could change those articles of association without our having any say. Therefore, I shall look with interest at the proposals that the Minister brings forward after vesting date to see what safeguards he intends to institute to ensure that the articles of association are so constructed as to give BTG maximum protection, consistent with operating in the climate that the Government intend for it, particularly when that climate involves the British market which is dogged by short-term concerns about profit instead of being strengthened by long-term visions of growth.
Our fears about the future of the privatised BTG are shared by many individuals outside the House. The chief executive of BTG, Ian Harvey, in an article in the Observer on 10 March 1991 on the future of the British Technology Group, argued—1 respect his view, although I disagree with it—that
the privatisation of BTG is welcome, but a trade sale could destroy the business".
He wrote:
We, the council and management of BTG, welcome privatisation. But that support is contingent upon preserving the independence and critical mass on which our business depends, and on preventing 'asset-stripping' by a future owner.
BTG's business is finding global markets for clever ideas and protecting researchers when the rights to their inventions are infringed. We do that through patenting and licensing.
Of course that is well known. He mentioned that eight years ago BTG had been criticised by the Government and universities for being a slow and bureaucratic organisation. There is no doubt that the organisation now operates much more effectively under its present management. That is not necessarily due to any action or inaction by the Government. I suspect that it has happened quite independently. If any Conservative Member wishes to challenge what I am saying he is welcome to do so, but he might be unpopular with his colleagues in the Whips' Office.
The chief executive of BTG makes much of the fact that the Government have had a negative effect. We should not forget that we are talking about an organisation which everyone in the world recognises as the best in its field. What would it be like if it were not restrained by the dead hand of the Government, be it through a dismal succession of Secretaries of State at the Department of Trade and Industry or through an even more dismal procession of Chancellors and the malign effect on a successful organisation of the attitude taken by the Treasury? What could BTG have managed in the public sector over the past 10 years had it not suffered under those constraints? It is small wonder that the BTG management now feels that it is better to risk the most short-term and blinkered market in the western world rather than to continue to operate under the guiding hand of such as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his colleagues in the Bruges group—the last bastion of Brugesism in the

Government, fighting a desperate rearguard action to preserve the true faith and keep the candle burning for the leader over the water.
I hope that you will agree that this is germane to the Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we are discussing the principles dividing the views of the Opposition from those of the Government and the reasons why we shall divide the House on Third Reading.
Let me continue outlining our objections. Ian Harvey wrote that his
position is clear—the private sector offers BTG the best chance for future expansion and success, and the best opportunity for Britain to retain its leadership position in world-wide technology flow.
I take issue with him on that, because we believe passionately that BTG's mission is to promote technology transfer from the universities and institutions in Britain and that that role is paramount and much more important than a successful role in trading worldwide. I would not attempt for a moment to say that its successful role in trading worldwide is not essential, but it must be subservient to BTG's other role in promoting research and development from British organisations. Anyone entering the debate with an open mind would agree with that.
Concerns have also been voiced by other external observers. I would not say that they were dispassionate observers because, like most of us, they have an interest in the Government's proposals. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has made its position clear. The Minister made much of the fact that it appeared to support privatisation. That is not necessarily the case. He has inferred that from the questions that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals was asked, and he is entitled to do so. Anyone listening to his first speech this afternoon would be clear that, when quoting, he stressed those syllables that he wished to emphasise and destressed those to which he wished to pay less attention. That is a natural thing for a Minister to do. He is seeking any port in a storm and welcomes any support for the privatisation of BTG outside the dwindling ranks of his own right-wing colleagues in the Conservative party. If he can suggest to gullible minds that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals supports him, so much the better for him.
In the briefing dated today, Tuesday 16 April 1991, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals said that it
continues to be concerned about the form which the privatisation of BTG might take and how the intellectual property entrusted to the new company will be safeguarded and effectively exploited to the continuing benefit of the originators of the intellectual property.
It continues:
The universities are by far the biggest single source of BTG's intellectual property—well over 50 per cent. if the contribution from teaching hospitals is included. Another 25 per cent. comes from Research Council Institutes and Research Associations. The rest comes largely from Government Laboratories.
In other words, the biggest source of BTG's intellectual property—almost the only source—is provided from public money. The briefing continues:
The total income from the academic sector from the BTG for development projects and from sharing of royalties from licensing of patents is at present some £30 million per annum.
That is a very welcome income which is much larger than that which accrues to American universities from the organisations acting on their behalf, and demonstrates just how successful BTG has been while acting in the public


sector in comparison with similar organisations in the private sector. Such organisations are united merely in their lack of success in the commercial markets.
The vice-chancellors and principals go on to say:
Universities are being exhorted by the Government to maximise the commercial exploitation of their inventions, discoveries and other intellectual property and to raise more money from sources other than Government. They are also meeting demand from increasing numbers of students at lower cost.
The vice-chancellors and principals make the point that the £13 million that the universities make from BTG is very worth while and should not be put at risk.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]

7 pm

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to refer to a letter which, contrary to all the conventions of the House, was sent by the Secretary of State for Wales to his Cabinet colleagues on 31 March. The third paragraph of that letter, which is relevant, says:
Because of the conventions on private Bills, LG Committee has concluded that it would be inappropriate formally to Whip the payroll on this occasion. But given the importance of this Bill"—
the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—
to the South Wales area, and the Government's consistent support for it hitherto, I am extremely anxious to prevent the spoiling tactics succeeding. I therefore very much hope that you, your junior Ministers and all your PPSs will do your best to be available to support the Bill, through the night if necessary. 
That letter is signed "Yours ever, David".
I take that to be an admission that whipping of the payroll on private business is contrary to "Erskine May", to the conventions of the House and to the rights of people objecting to private Bills. Having admitted that it is a thoroughly wrong thing to do, the letter from which I have just quoted actually whips the payroll. On behalf of my constituents and of other objectors, I must ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule that the letter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It is clearly in breach of the conventions of the House.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to draw to your attention a letter of which I have been given a copy. It is addressed to all members of the Cabinet and is headed "Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill".

Mr. Morgan: The date?

Mr. Jones: I understand that the letter was sent in February 1991. It says:
Do you really want to spend £150 million of taxpayers' money to obliterate this view for ever?
It is signed "Rhodri Morgan, MP for Cardiff, West".

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House has a procedure for dealing with private Bills. An essential part of that procedure allows individual Members of Parliament to come to their own considered judgment on whether legislation should be supported or opposed. There is a tradition, in pursuance of that objective, that neither the Government nor the Opposition take an official view, and that the Whips are not brought into play. The Select Committee that dealt with this Bill decided that, in view of the conflicting nature of the evidence, it would not be appropriate to come to a firm decision. Instead, it required the promoters to carry out a further investigation and to report to the Secretary of State for Wales 12 months after the Committee had finished. It then charged the Secretary of State to act in a quasi-judicial capacity—to weigh the evidence before him and come to a decision.
Clearly, the Secretary of State for Wales has prejudged the matter. He has decided, regardless of the evidence, to support the Bill and the building of the barrage. The Committee, which sat for a very long time and deliberated very closely4put its faith in the objectivity of the Secretary


of State. Now that its decision has been abrogated by the unilateral action of the Secretary of State, should not the Committee, before we proceed further, be offered an opportunity to review its decision?

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before ruling, perhaps you will conside the fact that most hon. Members—in particular, Welsh Members—have received from nume-rous sources, especially on the Opposition side of the House, circular letters expressing strong objection to the proposed legislation. As Chairman of the New Building Sub-Committee, I should like to point out that recently a private Bill concerning the London Underground was debated at some length. The Committee contacted all Members with a view to making them aware of what was happening. Letters urging all Members to participate in the debates on private Bills have become more common.
I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) a letter requesting my presence at the debate on this Bill. In all probability, my Friend sent a similar request to other Members. The Secretary of State for Wales is a member of the Government, but, as a Member of Parliament, he should have the opportunity—one is afforded to every other Member—to ask others to support or object to certain measures. I am not speaking as a Whip, and I am not here to whip my colleagues in respect of the Bill. I speak in my private capacity as a Member from the valleys, who supports the Bill. Every hon. Member must be at liberty to make observations in support of or against the Bill. I have no doubt that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the basis of what has been said, will be able to come to a considered judgment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must listen to points of order that are genuine, and I shall do so. Indeed, these are serious matters. However, the House has already agreed that the Bill should come before us for further consideration on Report. In fact, the Bill is not yet before the House, and I intend to ask the Clerk to read—

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet, and I am trying to be helpful. I know that, among some hon. Members, this is a contentious issue. Let us get the Bill before the House, and then I shall take points of order relating to it.

As amended, further considered.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the comments made a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), may I point out that there is only one difference between the letter circulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the one circulated by the Member for an English constituency who happens to be the Secretary of State for Wales: my hon. Friend sent out his letter on paper that carried his private address, whereas the Secretary of State sent his out on

official Welsh Office notepaper. In other words, the Secretary of State was sending an official communication to his Cabinet colleagues. That communication states:
Because of the conventions on private Bills"—
so the Secretary of State accepts that there is a convention, but why has he been breaking it?—
it would be inappropriate formally to Whip the payroll on this occasion. But … I am extremely anxious to prevent the spoiling tactics succeeding. I therefore very much hope that you, your junior Ministers and all your PPSs will do your best to be available to support the Bill, through the night if necessary.
If my hon. Friend does not recognise that as an official communication from the Secretary of State for Wales, I am very sorry. There is a world of difference between what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has done legitimately on behalf of his constituents and the action of the Secretary of State, who, seemingly, has followed the actions of his predecessor in supporting Associated British Ports for the purpose of developing the Cardiff bay area.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Fortunately, I have a copy of the letter from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from which it is clear that the LG Committee considered the Bill. That means that it was considered by Ministers. Page 896 of "Erskine May", headed "Ministerial reports", says:
All reports made by a Minister of the Crown on a private Bill stand referred to the committee on the bill … The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure 1954–55 recommended that Ministers' reports should as a rule be made available to all interested parties not less than fourteen days before the committee of the first House sits on the bill. When by agreement of the parties the committee sits less than 14 days after the second reading of a bill, the report should be issued as soon as possible after second reading. This recommenda-tion was accepted by the Government.
Ministers have ignored the Bill publicly and have not produced a report—or if they have, not at the appropriate stage—but have further considered the Bill and ignored the rules that require those reports to be considered by a Committee of the House. The only way in which this underhand, shabby business can be properly scrutinised is for proceedings to be delayed so that the Committee that considered the Bill can be reconvened to consider the Minister's report.
The letter makes it clear that Ministers have been considering the Bill behind closed doors in Whitehall. The Secretary of State for Wales is answerable to the House and should have provided the Committee's report to the Private Bill Committee, but he has failed to fulfil his duties. We have had 10 years of the Government trampling over the rights of Parliament, but it would be helpful if we could have an adjournment so that this matter could be examined carefully and the Minister's report submitted to the reconvened Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The House has ordered that the Bill be considered. Many important amendments must be debated. I must hear points of order, but I hope that they are pertinent and that they can be dealt with by the Chair.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have raised a serious issue on the function and role of the Secretary of State for Wales. The report of the Private Bill Committee says:


The Committee requires an undertaking on behalf of the promoters that they will proceed with the Bill only after the consent of the Secretary of State has been given, and the Secretary of State should give his consent only when he has before him the Hydro technical report, the promoters' conclusion and all other representations made to him during the three-month consultation period to which the Committee had referred. The Secretary of State should be satisfied that all the relevant economic, technical and safety criteria can be met by the Bill. If he is not satisfied, no public funds should be put towards the construction of the barrage.
The Committee charged the Secretary of State with a specific objective role—to judge and assess—but he has written letters to Cabinet colleagues supporting the Bill and asking them to vote for it. He was asked to fulfil an important—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The points that are being made are arguments for Third Reading. As I said, the House has determined that the Bill be now considered. Hon. Members should proceed to consider the amendments that have been selected.

Mr. Morgan: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who referred to my circulating in February a photograph of Cardiff bay at low tide to members of the Cabinet asking them to consider whether they could not think of better ways of spending £150 million than destroying—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect, that is not a point of order for the Chair. There is nothing untoward in hon. Members encouraging other hon. Members to attend a debate. I shall listen to points of order, but I ask that they be genuine points with which the Chair can deal rather than matters for debate.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand your difficulties and I am sure that all Labour Members appreciate the kindness and courtesy with which you are trying to deal with these difficult points of order. We do not wish to make your life difficult or embarrassing. However, these important matters must be dealt with. I listened carefully to your ruling that the House has resolved to consider the Bill. We do not dispute that, but the matter in issue is that when the House decided to consider the Bill it was not aware that the Secretary of State for Wales was about to involve himself, in a direct ministerial capacity, in trying to influence the passage of the Bill. [Interruption.] I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) was trying to intervene, but he was not.

Mr. Alun Michael: I cannot intervene on a point of order.

Mr. Davies: I would not put it past my hon. Friend, not that I would oblige him by giving way.
The Opposed Private Bill Committee gave the Secretary of State precise responsibility, in a quasi-judicial capacity, to reach a judgment on behalf of the House. It can no longer have confidence in the Secretary of State making that judgment. I appreciate that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, cannot give a ruling on that, but will you draw it to the attention of Mr. Speaker and your colleagues to see whether the Select Committee on Procedure should consider it and decide whether, in the light of the decision

of the Opposed Private Bill Committee, further guidelines should be issued to Committees that consider private legislation so that they can decide whether they should repeat the confidence that the Opposed Private Bill Committee showed?
In his letter, the Secretary of State makes it clear that he regards any further debate on the Bill as spoiling tactics. I resent that because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I and other hon. Friends have spent much time preparing amendments which we believe will improve the Bill. For example, we have sought to—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing my good will. The first new clause appears in his name and I hope that he will allow the House to get on with it.

Mr. Davies: The amendments that we have tabled would improve the Bill. The Secretary of State regards any further attempt to amend the Bill as a spoiling tactic. Would not it be appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to say from the Dispatch Box whether he is prepared to accept one of the 300 amendments? That would offer the House further guidance—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall hear what the Secretary of State has to say when we proceed with the amendments.

Mr. Elliot Morley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the procedures for private Bills. The letter from the Secretary of State shows that he has breached the principle of neutrality on a private Bill. As you will be aware, this is not the first time that concern has been expressed about the way in which the private Bill procedure works. This seems to be another sham in terms of genuine neutrality when the Government are organising behind the scenes. In those circumstances, should not this Bill be regarded as a hybrid Government Bill? Should not the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box and make it clear what the position is, rather than go behind the scenes with private letters whipping up clandestine support?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters which the hon. Gentleman can rightly bring out in debate. This is the last point of order.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order—a quite separate point—Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, business that comes before the House should be judged by Members without fear or favour. While I was walking over here from Norman Shaw building I was talking to a Conservative Member. He asked how long the business would go on and I said that it would probably be at least two days. I asked him what he was doing about it and he said that he was rather committed because last August or September he had an invitation to Cardiff and stayed overnight as a guest of the promoters—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rogers: This is a very pertinent point of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would come to a point with which I might be able to deal with.

Mr. Rogers: He said that last August or September he had stayed in Cardiff overnight as a guest of the promoters of the Bill. We know—it is in parliamentary records and we also have copies of the correspondence—that there was an invitation, a corrupt invitation in my view, from the promoters of the Bill to influence Members by offering them and their wives free accommodation and meals in Cardiff, as a measure for promoting the Bill. I would not have raised this except that a Conservative Member told me that he was influenced by this. I would not betray a private conversation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him!"] I would not betray a private conversation by naming the hon. Member, who at least is honest about his views, but I would certainly provide his name in confidence to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you so desired. In view of the action of the promoters of the Bill in corruptly trying to influence Members of the House, will you ask our hon. Clerk to investigate the matter urgently so that you can rule on it before tonight's business is proceeded with?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair at this stage.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention in connection with private business to Standing Order No. 144? I have referred to and quoted from "Erskine May", which pointed out that reports from the Minister had to be made at the Committee stage. The reason is that the Committee has the duty and obligation to examine, and to allow the Government Department to examine and make representations on, any report which the Minister makes. I am suggesting to you that the letter from the Secretary of State, which falls absolutely within the terms of Standing Order No. 144, as it is from a Minister of the Crown, which means the holder of an office in Her Majesty's Government, and includes the Treasury, should be treated as a report by a Minister for the purpose of Standing Order No. 144. If that is the position, we are in a mess over this Bill, because the report cannot be considered by the Committee, the Committee stage having been completed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Standing Order refers only to reports submitted to the House; it does not relate in any way to letters that might be sent by a Minister to any of his colleagues.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a genuine point of order?

Mr. Hughes: It is, and I will be very brief. I was not aware that there would be this preliminary argument and I want to ask about something on which I have not heard you rule and which is of general interest. Is it or is it not in order for Government Members to whip Back-Benchers on private business?

Madam Deputy Speaker: A Whip encourages Members to be present during a debate and to divide and vote at the end of a debate on a private Bill as they wish. But any individual Member, including a Minister, can encourage his colleagues to be present for a debate and then determine for himself how he votes at the end of that debate. There can be no further point of order on that one.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that. I do not have a copy of the letter that colleagues clearly have, but, as I understand

from what was read out, it did not just advise them to attend; it advised them to attend and made a very clear recommendation as to which way they should vote. That appears to offend against what I always understood was the convention and is the rule governing the conduct of private business. If that is the case, even if it is by a Secretary of State, surely it is out of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have not seen the letter, but, as I understand it, it does not instruct Members to divide or to vote one way or the other; it invites them to support the Bill.
I think that we should get on with the Bill now. There have been sufficient points of order.

New Clause 1

SAVING FOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

`.—(1) The works authorised by this Act shall not he treated for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (or any general order superseding that order made under section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or any corresponding provision of an act repealing that section), to be—

(a) development authorised by an Act which designates specifically both the nature of the development and the land upon which it may be carried out; or
(b) development by dock, pier, harbour, water transport, canal or inland navigation undertakings.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt the works described in sections 17, 19 and 20 of this Act are development within the meaning of section 55 of the Act of 1990 (which defines "development").

(3) Nothing in this Act shall constitute an approval, in outline, in principle or otherwise, for the purposes of the Act of 1990, and any application for planning permission for the carrying out of the works shall be determined entirely on its own merits.

(4) For the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 any works authorised by this Act which lie seaward of the mean low water level of spring tides shall he within the county and the city of the borough (as the case may be) from the date of the passing of this Act until the relevant date.

(5) In this section—

"the relevant date" means in the case of works authorised under—

(a) sections 17 (power to execute works) and 19 (subsidiary works) of this Act, the tenth anniversary of the passing of this Act; or
(b) section 20 (works for accommodation of vessels) of this Act, the date when the barrage is removed;

"the Act of 1990" means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.'.—[Mr. Hood.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 45, in page 10, line 6, at end insert—
`(9) If any of the works authorised by this section have not been commenced before the expiry of seven years from the passing of this Act, then on expiration of that period the powers of this section in relation to that work shall cease.'.
No. 79, in page 74, line 31, leave out clause 97.
No. 80, in page 74, line 37, leave out from 'within' to the end of line 44 and insert—
`7 years after the passing of this Act.
(2) The works authorised by this Act shall not be treated as development permitted by Article 3 of and Class B in Part 17 of Schedule 2 the said order of 1988 (which permit development by dock, pier, harbour, water transport, canal or inland navigation undertakings).'.

Mr. Hood: The purpose of the new clause and the amendments is to apply all the provisions of the town and country planning legislation to all the developments enabled by the Bill, including the barrage itself, associated works and harbour works in the inland bay.
I sat on the Select Committee that considered this Bill and I do not believe that the Bill should proceed from the Committee stage. It is flawed. The powers that it would introduce are totally unacceptable in the democratic process.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend tell us clearly why he feels that the Bill was fundamentally flawed?

Mr. Hood: I will certainly try to do that. The main flaws, those concerning the Secretary of State, were set out in the earlier points of order, and there are a number of others.
By giving the Secretary of State the power to enact a Bill, the Select Committee took powers away from Parliament itself. It is the duty of Parliament, not the Secretary of State, to enact Bills. I can say with hindsight that, had we known—I do not see my three colleagues on the Committee in their places—that what has happened since would happen, I genuinely doubt whether the three-to-one majority would have favoured the Bill.
There were other points. The ground water model that was accepted by all the members of the Committee was wrong, as was the assessed impact of ground water. This will cause serious trouble.

Mr. Rogers: It is important that, initially, my hon. Friend set out the fact that the new clause relates to the general planning considerations that ought to apply within the area. Will he also accept that one of the reasons why people promote private Bills is that they want to circumvent planning restrictions? They do not pursue the matter at the local level because they know there will be opposition to it. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who I know is a sponsored member of the National Union of Mineworkers, will remember the passage of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway (No. 2) Bill. The company that wanted to develop a private dock in that area was quite happy to provide meals and even, during an all-night sitting—

Mr. Ron Davies: Champagne.

Mr. Hood: Champagne suppers, as I remember it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with new clause 1 and some amendments. This bears no relationship to them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would deal with the new clause.

Mr. Hood: I am aware of the example that my hon. Friend gives. I was invited to the champagne fiasco, as we called it then. There is a democratic deficit when such conduct is permitted. We go all over the world telling people proudly about the Mother of Parliaments. I hope that the new democracies that are springing up all over Europe will not emulate some of the antics involved in our private Bill procedure.

Mr. Michael: I agree with my hon. Friend about the unsatisfactory nature of the private Bill procedure, but may I suggest that it has stood in the way of those of us who wish the Bill to proceed? Will he accept that there is the greatest possible contrast between the practices that were pursued in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the

member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) in his intervention and the clear and clean way in which matters have proceeded on this Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), rather than going down that road, dealt with the amendments which are before the House.

Mr. Hood: I shall respect your judgment, as usual, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have often sat in the House, as we all have, including your good self, Madam Deputy Speaker, and listened to objection after objection to the private Bill procedure. I am persuaded by my experience in the House and on private Bill Committees that all private Bills should not be given the benefit of the doubt, as is stated in "Erskine May". I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has "Erskine May" beside him, as he always does. No doubt he could tell me which part advises Parliament that, when judging private Bills, the benefit of the doubt must always be given to objectors and petitioners against the Bill. That means, of course, that the promoters must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. It was the unanimous view of the Select Committee that the promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill have not proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Because of that and that alone, the Bill should have fallen. Unfortunately it did not, and we are now discussing it further.
It is incumbent on me to mention that, in not supporting the Bill, I wrote a minority report. I should give an account of my reasons—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting as his reasons may be, the hon. Gentleman is moving a new clause that deals with town and country planning. Perhaps he would relate his comments to that.

Mr. Hood: I shall do my best, but I thought that a preamble about how I had reached my conclusions would be helpful to the House. As has been pointed out, many hon. Members who will have to decide on the Bill and the amendments have not heard much of the evidence.
In my experience, there is usually acrimony and dissent in Committees dealing with private Bills. No one denies that the Bill under consideration is controversial, but fortunately there was no acrimony or resentment among Committee members. We were considering the Bill for so long that we got to know each other better and we understood each other's points of view. There are strong feelings for and against the Bill among my hon. Friends, but I have been treated with courtesy, as one would expect, by my Welsh and Celtic comrades.

Mr. Rogers: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no acrimony on the Bill. I have always said that I would be happy to change my mind about how I voted if it could be demonstrated to me that the industrial development of the dockland area of Cardiff relied entirely upon the development of a barrage. Manifestly, over the last year or so, the industrial development has proceeded without the barrage, so there is no need for huge expenditure of public money. Indeed, it might well have a detrimental effect upon the people of Cardiff in that it will drive up land and house prices and make it more difficult for people on


ordinary incomes to live in the dockland area. I accept that initially they would have subsidised housing but when the houses are sold, there will be a free market. That is why my hon. Friend's new clause about planning might he helpful. Any benefits of housing subsidy would apply only to the first cycle of ownership. Immediately afterwards, there would be a substantial effect on housing prices, to the disadvantage of people on low incomes in the Cardiff area.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters are totally irrelevant. They relate not at all to the group of amendments under discussion. The hon. Member for Clydesdale will oblige me and the House by speaking pertinently to the new clause and the related amendments.

Mr. Hood: I almost pre-empted you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was about to advise my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that the points he was raising would come up later, when we will be able to exchange experiences and views.
My grandmother used to say that confession was good for the soul. Why should we not confess among friends and colleagues? When the Committee proceedings began, I thought that any project involving such massive public expenditure must be good. I put myself in the position of an hon. Member whose constituency was being offered public expenditure of £150 million to £200 million and thought that I would not like a colleague telling me that my constituency could not have the benefit of that public expenditure. Therefore, I started from the position that I would have to be convinced very strongly not to support the Bill. I may have been wrong not to be more objective, but that was human nature. After listening to the evidence and visiting Cardiff, I was persuaded to change my mind for various reasons, which I will deal with on many other amendments during the night or, indeed, tomorrow morning.
Clause 97 modifies the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by omitting the development involved in the construction of the barrage from the normal planning process. There is an EEC directive on the planning and development of such projects, which I understand that the Government intend to implement next year. It may not be the present Government who implement it, but its effect will be that all such projects should go through the planning process. There should be no disagreement that that is right and proper, and I look forward to the implementation of that directive.
Clause 97 would prevent that process and supersede existing law. It would be a dangerous precedent to allow the enactment of such an enabling clause, which would deny local people who are threatened by such huge developments the right to be included in the detailed planning consideration, as would be the case under the planning law.
I referred to "Erskine May" giving the benefit of the doubt to objectors. If anybody should be given the benefit of the doubt under the Bill, it should be the 11,000-plus people who are threatened by ground water. That was one of the issues that persuaded me not to support the Bill. It is wrong to tell local people affected by it that they have no right to be consulted, to have their views considered under the planning process and to object as they are entitled to under normal planning law.
Why do the promoters want to supersede the planning legislation?

Mr. Rogers: May I help my hon. Friend by giving him the answer? I have with me an extract from the Investors' Chronicle which says that Associated British Ports, one of the major landowners in the area, wants to enhance the value of its properties. I can give my hon. Friend a copy of the extract. It implies that by getting round the planning laws, Associated British Ports will make huge sums of money. Of course, it is significant that one of the directors of Associated British Ports is the former Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Crickhowell, who gave permission for the development.

Mr. Hood: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Why do the promoters of the Bill want clause 97, which will take away the rights of the community and of individuals living in it? That is democratic deficit and the House should not allow it to happen.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend thought that, as a Committee member, he had discharged his duty to the residents of Cardiff who are threatened by flooding by agreeing to the Secretary of State's proposition and, after further investigation into ground water, making a quasi-judicial judgment. As a member of that Committee, how does my hon. Friend feel about debating amendments when, having arranged to subvert the proceedings tonight, Welsh Office Ministers do not even have the courtesy to be present? Does my hon. Friend feel betrayed by that Committee decision?

Mr. Hood: I am not surprised that Ministers betray me and others. However, I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and hope that he has scuttled off to bring the Secretary of State for Wales into the Chamber to listen to the debate. If he does not return within a reasonable time, I shall feel betrayed.

Mr. Morgan: I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State must be in the precincts of the House because, five minutes ago, I received a letter from him apologising that a letter was sent to me urgently yesterday and affixed to the notice board, addressed to Rhodri Jones, MP. Let us hope that he returns from being a presence in the precincts to being a presence in the Chamber.

Mr. Hood: I am sure that the Secretary of State will pop in to say hello. He will have to come because he is lobbying quite a few of his colleagues to come along. He cannot do that and not turn up himself. Whether he will take part in the debate is another matter.
I shall compare like with like regarding the enabling part of the Bill. It is important to take account of the explanatory memorandum of the Hook Island (Poole Bay) Bill, which states:
The Bill contains powers to enable BP Petroleum Development Limited to construct an artificial island in the Hook Sands area of Poole Bay, for the purpose of winning and getting petroleum which lies beneath the waters of the Bay.
Because the Island would be in navigable waters it is necessary for the construction of the Island and works connected with it to have the authority of Parliament. That is relevant because the promoters of this Bill respected and wanted that. The explanatory memorandum continues:
However the Bill provides that the works will be subject to Local Authority Planning Controls.
The promoters of that Bill have taken account of the community and local people who wish to be consulted and taken into consideration.

Mr. Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is good enough for BP should be good enough for ABP?

Mr. Hood: I was trying to make that point. The preamble to that Bill states:
It is expedient that, subject to planning permission being granted …
It is expedient to apply the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:
It is expedient that the Company should be empowered, subject to planning permission.
That Bill would not circumvent Parliament's rights.
If Parliament passes the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill tonight—it could be early or even late tomorrow morning —we shall forfeit Parliament's right to enact legislation.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Is he not trying to say that, whether we are in favour of, or against, the Cardiff bay barrage, we should not favour a Bill that supersedes the normal law of the land—the town and country planning legislation? Therefore, everyone should support the amendment, regardless of whether they support the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government often talk about individuals' rights and looking after individuals' affairs, but the Bill does not consider individuals' rights. The Government do not give two hoots for individuals but are more concerned with big business, big bucks and big profits—to hell with the 11,000 people whose homes could be flooded. They are concerned only with money, money, money. What the Bill would do in the name of Parliament falls foul of the rhetoric of Ministers, and their hon. Friends, about the rights of individuals.
The new clause and supporting amendments will retain the rights of individuals under the town and country planning legislation. If Parliament decides to give away its powers, that is up to it. I hope that it will not give away individuals' rights to object to the Government or to big business, in whoever's name it stands.

Mr. Morgan: If my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) will return my notes, I shall begin my speech which will amplify some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).
It is obvious from private Bills that have been introduced more recently that most people in the private Bill business, even including the promoters' agents whose names will be well known to the House, when they have promoted subsequent Bills, such as the Hook Island (Poole Bay) Bill on behalf of BP, will appreciate the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale about the traditional exemption from the town and country planning legislation. That first happened in the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill a couple of years ago and is now happening on the Hook Island (Poole Bay) Bill, which was introduced about a month ago and which was drafted by the promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It includes exemptions from the sweeping powers that Parliament has traditionally given to promoters of private Bills if they are successful in getting them through the House. It has the same sweeping powers as public legislation: it sweeps everything else aside—and there is no local control over what happens. It is very old fashioned and Stalinist—one sweeping blow of the bear's fist in the

House of Commons and nobody else gets a look in. That may have been all right in the 19th century when private Bill legislation was at its peak, it was acceptable in the railway age, but is it acceptable now? Some promoters have recognised that and have used the same agents as those who are presenting the Bill or are acting for the promoters of the Bill tonight to draft the same new clause as we are presenting to the House tonight.
If it is good enough for the residents of Penzance and Poole, and the promoters' agents on the Bill, it is good enough for us in Cardiff. There is absolutely no reason why the promoters could not now take advice from those self-same agents who drafted exactly the same sort of clause as we lifted wholesale from the Hook Island (Poole Bay) Bill and put it into the Bill at this late stage.
I do not know whether there is any way of seeing what the promoters plan to say to us before we complete the debate on the new clause so that we may see whether they downgrade the citizens of Cardiff, believing that they are not as politically mature as the citizens of Poole and Penzance. As a representative of part of the capital of Wales, obviously I do not take that view. I believe that if it is good enough for the denizens of Poole and Penzance, it should apply to the citizens of Cardiff as well. Although the Bill was originally introduced a couple of years ago, it does not mean that it remains as a fixed factor that cannot be amended or represents some dreadful, embarrassing climbdown. There is nothing difficult about accepting an amendment that we are completely confident will become standard before long. The old Stalinist, private Bill procedure is going to die—we are sure of that.

Mr. Rogers: Before my hon. Friend becomes too depressed—I do not want him to feel too solemn at this stage of the proceedings—may I say that the general downgrading of the issues often seems to be the case in relation to Associated British Ports. Its annual report last year spoke of 160 acres in the Cardiff bay district where there was to be massive development that would circumvent the planning considerations included in new clause 1. Later reports do not mention Cardiff at all, although there is reference to developments in Florida, America, and other parts of the United Kingdom. It seems as though Cardiff has been written out, possibly because it is a political hot potato or it is felt that ABP already has it, so why should it worry?

Mr. Morgan: That is right. There is some evidence for what my hon. Friend has said, which he will no doubt develop further in his speech. The Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and Associated British Ports, through the umbilical cord of Lord Crickhowell's role—I put it no higher than that—work in concert. One might be said to be a front organisation for the other. It would concern everyone if ABP thought that Cardiff was a back number and it was far more exciting to develop further abroad.
However, one could well understand how such a state might arise because almost everyone in the Cardiff district who has been connected with the legislation has been on a trip to Baltimore. I do not think that that is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). If one lives in Cardiff, is involved in politics and has not been on a trip to Baltimore, one has not lived. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South


and Penarth can resist such blandishments, but everyone else has been to Baltimore, so such an opinion is understandable.

Mr. Rogers: Whether or not people go to Baltimore is entirely up to them. I went to Aberaeron for my holidays and there is, supposedly, to be a new marina development at Cei Bach. I do not think that those developments are to receive £150 million or will circumvent the planning laws —the basis of the new clause. The developers at Cei Bach are going about the matter in the proper way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will not be tempted to go on a Cook's tour but will address the new clause and the associated amendments.

Mr. Morgan: I shall merely respond to the correct invervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), which, I am sure, was in order, otherwise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have ruled it out of order.
I go to Baltimore every year, but I go to the original one, the tiny fishing harbour in county Kerry, where there has been no development of any kind—long may it remain so and long may the price of Guinness remain reasonable.
I shall return to the exemption or non-exemption of developments from town and country planning legislation in the Bill, and our attempt to modernise the Bill by introducing a clause that subjects the Bill to town and country planning legislation in a way that more recent private Bills—even those on which advice has been taken from the same promoters' parliamentary agents as those for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—did not. We drafted the clause that we want the promoters of this Bill to accept.
We believe that the new clause would have the beneficial effect of subjecting the Bill to the normal planning controls to overcome the democratic deficit problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale has referred. The new clause reserves the normal powers of the city council as the local planning authority and maintains some strategic duties that still pertain to county councils, although their role in town and country planning is much reduced. They still have a residual role relating to transportation planning. The local authority would then be able to stand up to the steamroller. There is a danger of steamroller powers being introduced in private Bills. There always has been, and it is now generally recognised that it is dangerous and out of kilter with the 1990s. We shall be trying to find out whether that fact is recognised by the Bill's promoters. The development corporation should have nothing to be ashamed of. It should be confident of its powers to apply for planning permission in the same way that normal, large development companies would do, and not have to play to an olympian set of rules whereby it takes its own decisions.
The same factors apply to the process of modernising planning regulations to bring them into line with the general spirit of the 1990s and the need for environmental assessment. If the city council still had planning powers, it would easily be able to insistron such assessments.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend was talking about the county councils' functions in terms of strategic planning. Many of us are Members of Parliament from Mid Glamorgan, which adjoins South Glamorgan—the promoting authority—and if the Bill is passed in it

spresent form it will have a considerable impact on the economy and, therefore, the planning of Mid Glamorgan. One of the advantages of amendment No. 45, particularly the aspect of subjecting the Bill to the democratic, local planning process, is that it would require South Glamorgan at least to consult with Mid Glamorgan and make some assessment of the Bill's impact on our communities in Mid Glamorgan. That seems to be one of the compelling advantages of amendment No. 45.

Mr. Morgan: That is right. The amendment pertains to the strategic planning duties that county councils still have, even though their role has been much reduced.
There has been a broad drift in the priorities of this country's planning legislation. We are trying to empower people and local authorities to take planning decisions in a responsible way. It is totally contrary to that broad drift to allow unelected development corporations to overcome planning decisions, subject to Parliament's views—which as we know from the Secretary of State's letter really means "subject to the views of the payroll vote". We should stand up for the rights of the ordinary Back Bencher tonight by bringing to the attention of the House and the nation the way in which the Secretary of State abuses the payroll Whip. That follows on from the leaked letter from the Government Chief Whip, who took the same action when the Bill was last considered in February.
There is a danger of a steamroller procedure by which the payroll Whip whips the Bill through Parliament, which then empowers the local unelected development corporation and its members, chosen by the Secretary of State, to ride roughshod over local objections to not only the Bill's principle but the actual works and detailed plans, and the minor aspects that would undoubtedly unfold over the 20 years of the development corporation's envisaged existence. That is a form of power that is totally outdated and anachronistic in 1991.

8 pm

Mr. Rogers: I am afraid that new clause 1 rather loses me because of its legalistic form. As the new clause is tabled in his name, perhaps before he sits down my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) can explain to us what it will mean as regards the environmental impact assessment. My hon. Friend was the European Commission representative for Wales for many years and he may know that environmental impact assessments will be mandatory for planning authorities when granting planning permission.
If the planning authorities are circumvented by this Bill, will the new clause bring us in line with proposed European legislation? Will my hon. Friend answer that specific question before he sits down because one of the problems that might develop is the control of waste management in the area—the costs and problems of recycling, pollution control and so forth and how waste will be disposed of. Will Cardiff be filled with lorries travelling through it to dispose of waste? Will there be a waste disposal facility within the dockland area? Will the waste be driven through Cardiff to areas outside? Normally those matters would be subject to planning control. The new clause would bring this matter back into the ambit of local people, who would like to control their own waste.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In responding to that intervention, I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will recollect that the next group of new clauses deals specifically with pollution control. We would have a tidy debate if we were to concentrate upon the town and country planning aspects during discussion on this new clause and dealt with pollution when we debate the next group of amendments.

Mr. Morgan: I think that your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was mainly intended to apply to the second part of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. I think that you would accept that the first part of his remarks—regarding the compulsory environmental impact assessment procedure to comply with an EC directive on such assessments—is relevant to this debate. I want to expand my remarks upon that aspect because I happen to have here a copy of the document relating environmental assessment to private Bills. This Bill does not have to comply with that directive because the procedure applying such assessments to private Bills has not yet been introduced.
I have a letter dated 26 February 1991, called "Environmental Assessment and Private Bill Procedures", from a member of the planning and development control division of the Department of the Environment. It sets out the proposed provisions which will require environmental assessments for all private Bills. We have to introduce that procedure to make our private Bills comply with the European Community directive on environmental impact assessments.
If the promoters of the Bill were to accept new clause 1, there would be no problem because then it would be up to Cardiff city council to decide that a proper environmental impact assessment ought to be carried out. The council would have that power and it would retrospectively modernise the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which has been proceeding through this House and the other place for four years and has therefore missed out on the EC directive.
By exercising our democratic rights tonight we will be able to bring the Bill, restrospectively, within the ambit of the directive by empowering Cardiff city council to decide that an independent validation of the environmental impact of the proposed works is required. Such an assessment would be necessary if the Bill were being introduced for the first time in the next Session of Parliament rather than in 1987 when it commenced its laborious procedure through the two Houses.
The letter from the Department of the Environment invites comment on details of the consultation paper. As all hon. Members are aware, the Department of the Environment is fond of consultation papers at the moment. It is part of the Government's new style of management not to blitz and blast its way through the nation and its various opinions but to assume that that variation is there and to ask people what they think. Perhaps that is what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment want to do. I know that there are other interpretations—they are dithering or being Mr. Nice Guy. However, as regards the new clause, if we believe that the introduction of compulsory environmental assessments is a good thing—we have thought so because we are incorporating assessments into all new private Bills

introduced in the 1991–92 Session, after November—it is simply a matter of deciding how to do it. That is why this consultation paper is being sent out.

Mr. Rogers: I would not want my hon. Friend to be unfair to the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Before he sits down, he ought to say that he is in agreement with the corporation's overall objectives, in that it wants to reunite Cardiff city centre with its waterfront and to promote development which will provide a "superb environment" in which people will want to "live, work and play", and so forth—matters that we will be discussing later.
For many of us, the only objection is the construction of the barrage, which will provide no extra building land for Cardiff. When my hon. Friend talks about Cardiff Bay development corporation getting in ahead of enlightened European legislation that we will now be the beneficiaries of, he ought to recognise that we support the vast majority of its aims. We object only to the construction of the barrage and blocking up the river mouth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It seems to me that the new clause is tied, fairly specifically, to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West will relate his remarks to that and to the new clause.

Mr. Morgan: The reason that I have touched upon the question whether environmental impact assessments would be compulsory and its relationship to new clause 1 is that Cardiff city council would be empowered to order an environmental impact assessment retrospectively on the Cardiff Bay barrage if we reserve the powers under the town and country planning legislation to do so. At the moment we cannot do so within the private Bill procedure that we have inherited.
The EC directive on environmental assessments came into being in July 1988 and we are incorporating that for the first time next November so that it will apply to all private Bills. The only way that we can apply that directive now is to incorporate new clause 1 and the two amendments in the Bill. That would enable Cardiff city council to order an assessment.
We are not saying that there has not been an environmental impact assessment, as there has, but it was not independent. Cardiff Bay development corporation were conscious of the problem and commissioned the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in Liverpool university to carry out an impact assessment but it was an in-house assessment.

Mr. Ron Davies: That is precisely the matter that I wanted to ask my hon. Friend to clarify. I understood that the corporation requested that the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology carry out such a study. The problem is that when it got the results of that study it chose to ignore the findings. Surely that is the problem.

Mr. Morgan: Without new clause 1 there is nothing to stop promoters saying that they have met all the environmental objectives set out by the EC, that they have hired consultants to do a report. But if they do not like the report they ignore it. What is more likely, because of customer-client relationships—and I do not blame the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in Liverpool because it has to live in the commercial world—is that if there are aspects of the draft reports that the client does not like it can say


that it wants that paragraph left out or a word amended because it is far too strong and would be misused when the report was published. What starts off as a strong report becomes extremely sanitised by the time that the fourth and final draft is packaged ready to be sent through the post. That is due to the customer-contractor relationship and because it was not an independent, validated environmental impact assessment of the sort that we would be empowering Cardiff city council to carry out and to insist upon as an independent body. One needs that independence. If it all takes place within the development corporation, and if the corporation's money is paying for the consultant's services, the project will be tailor-made to meet the political requirements of the development corporation as it seeks to satisfy what it believes are the requirements of this House. This House should respond to that by saying that we shall empower an independent body, such as Cardiff city council, to exercise conventional planning powers in an attempt to avoid money talking in that way. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
What I have described is what usually happens when consultants are working directly for a client and not for a body which is one step removed from the client and which can exercise monitoring powers. The Government are trying to introduce that principle in legislation by stating that the monitoring body should not be the operating body. That is happening in waste regulation at the moment. City councils will be able only to monitor waste disposal arrangements, not to operate them, because, according to the Government, it is naughty for the same body to operate the procedures and to monitor itself. The Government are saying that if an organisation has regulatory powers, it cannot also be the operator.
We are intending to apply exactly such principles in new clause 1 by restoring town and country planning powers to Cardiff city council and, to a lesser extent, to the county council. The new clause and the amendments seek to separate the regulatory body, which is properly the local authority, from the proprietors of the land, the owners of the money, who can bring in the bulldozers, knock things down or build them up or do exactly what they want with their money. Those people should not be the masters of their house because, if they are, there will be no control over the development.
That is why we have sought to strengthen the democratic powers that have been normal throughout the country since the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. Private Bills should not exempt development corporations from having to submit to some form of independent control. We often hear the phrase "the democratic deficit" in relation to development corporations, control over them, and the appointment of their staff by Secretaries of State without any control being exercised by an elected body. We are not happy that the corporations can then call on Government money, on the payroll vote, and can whip their legislation through the House, with the result that their powers are sweeping. That is not acceptable in 1991. Indeed, that opinion is increasingly being accepted by promoters and agents, and by the Officers of the House who are concerned with the private Bill procedure.
The Bill, however, was introduced before that concern was recognised in the legislation that is currently coming into force. It should, therefore, be fairly simple for the promoters to accept new clause 1. Accepting it cannot be too cumbersome, onerous or obstructive a duty or the

same parliamentary agents would not have included such provisions in two Bills, one of which has completed half its passage through Parliament and the other, the Hook Island (Poole Bay) Bill, has only just started on its way. Obviously, BP is not a soft organisation that believes in handing over goodies to the local authorities. If it could get away with what is happening here, I am sure that BP would think about doing it. However, it accepts that one cannot get away with such things in 1991. Such sweeping powers are no longer acceptable, so even companies such as BP, with the fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximise profits, are willing to accept such limitations in the Bills that they promote, using the same parliamentary agents. Such provisions should now be retrospectively incorporated into this Bill. That should not be difficult.
We hope to receive some sign tonight that the promoters are willing to accept new clause 1. After all, we have uprooted its provisions directly from the Hook Island (Poole Bay) Bill and seek only to incorporate them in this Bill.

Mr. Michael: It might help the House if I explain that new clause 1 is based on a number of misapprehensions. When I have explained the situation, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will recognise that some of his colourful language was not appropriate.
I shall comment first, however, on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who expressed respect for opponents of the Bill. It is right that the Bill's opponents should be respected, but I hope that he will agree that it is also right that the Bill's supporters should be respected. I refer especially to members of both local authorities, people living in the affected areas, and the leaders of the local councils, especially the late Councillor John Reynolds, whose passion for and vision of our city of Cardiff is unsurpassed, and who was a great supporter of the project.

Mr. Rogers: We all wish to pay tribute to the late Councillor John Reynolds, who was greatly admired by many of us who knew him for many years, dating back to the old days of Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council. I should like to join the tribute to him.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and know that those sentiments are shared by all hon. Members from south Wales, irrespective of whether they support or oppose the Bill. It is right that mutual respect should exist even where we disagree strongly, as is the case over the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale also said that the Bill is fatally flawed, but that is an erroneous and extravagant claim, especially on the planning matters relating to the new clause. There is no disagreement between us about the fact that our procedures should be improved. The present system needs to be radically and speedily changed so that we can get rid of the present private Bill procedures. As I have said on a number of occasions, the current system is unfair both to the promoters and supporters of the Bill, and to those who oppose it. I am sure that we can all agree that, to put it at its mildest, there are some unsatisfactory elements in the current system.

Mr. Hood: I have said this before, but it is worth repeating now. The Clerks advised the Committee not to


support the Bill, which was the Committee's decision, because it gives powers to the Secretary of State, but takes them away from Parliament. The Committee chose not to take the Clerks' advice. My hon. Friend may say that what I have said is erroneous, but we were advised against the Bill.

Mr. Michael: I shall not be drawn into discussing that matter because it is not relevant to the new clause. However, although I respect his view, I disagree with my hon. Friend.
The Bill gives planning permission only for those matters that are specifically covered in the Bill and that have been dealt with through the processes of the House. It does not remove power from local authorities. In effect, the provisions relate only to decisions on the actual works.
The planning permission that is, in effect, given in the Bill is a matter on which people have had plenty of opportunity to petition. Many people, groups and other bodies exercised that right. The three local authorities involved also had an opportunity to comment and to petition.
The simple point is that the Bill does not remove planning powers from Cardiff city council, Vale of Glamorgan council or South Glamorgan county council. Hon. Members have referred to the Hook Island (Poole Bay) Bill. As I understand it, the island in Poole harbour is currently outside planning jurisdiction because it is below the low water mark. That Bill therefore contains a clause to bring the area within the planning legislation. The situation is very different from that relating to the Cardiff bay barrage. The clause is not necessary here, whereas it is necessary in the other Bill. That is the difference.
The planning powers of local authorities have been mentioned during this discussion. Planning powers are not affected or reduced by the Bill. I have a special interest in the planning powers of local authorities and of Cardiff city council in particular. I was chairman of its planning and development committee and a member of the committee for many years. I have taken an interest in planning matters in the city of Cardiff for over 25 years. For that reason, hon. Members will understand that I was one of the first to regret the changes in law and practice which have occurred under this Government. However, those changes have nothing to do with the Bill or the new clause and amendments.
As the entire area of the development corporation is in my constituency, I assure the House that I should be the first to object to any weakening of the planning powers of the local authorities in the Cardiff bay area. Here I come to the nub of why the new clause is wrong. The Bill has been promoted on the basis that it would confer the specific planning permission to which I referred. Many of the matters referred to in Committee were planning issues. To subject the undertakers now to a requirement to seek planning permission would require them to argue issues already thoroughly examined three or four times in earlier debates on the principle of the Bill and in detail in Committees of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Morgan: Like me, my hon. Friend has been involved in planning matters in Cardiff for many years. He has been involved more directly than I have, but my

involvement goes back longer than his. I was an officer of the old Cardiff county borough planning department back in 1965 and 1966. I have a long-standing interest going back over 26 years.
I ask for my hon. Friend's comments on the following point. I am sure that he will be aware that since the Cardiff Bay development corporation was set up it has had to apply for planning permission for matters other than the works involved in the Bill, such as alteration of footpaths and other matters. Every time that the corporation has applied for planning permission, it has threatened that if permission was not given it would appeal to the Secretary of State, who would give permission.
There has been an entirely unorthodox new world of town and country planning in the area covered by the Bill in the past three to four years. The threat was dangled before the Cardiff city planning department and its planning committee on every single occasion that the development corporation sought powers. Everything has been done by direct negotiation. The planning committee could not sit back and consider whether to refuse or agree to the application, as planning committees normally do. The old steamroller was used every time. The development corporation said, "If you do not agree, we shall go to see the Secretary of State for Wales, so you had better meet us at least 80 per cent. of the way and go to sleep for the rest of the time." In my view, the planning process in Cardiff has been corrupted in that way ever since the Cardiff Bay development corporation was set up.

Mr. Michael: I understand that that is my hon. Friend's view, but he is completely wrong. Councillor Sue Essex, the chair of the planning and development committee, and the members of that committee would have every right to feel grossly insulted by my hon. Friend's remarks. It is, of course, the members of planning committees who take decisions, not the employees of planning departments. I underline once more to my hon. Friend that no change in the planning arrangements is being made other than the effective granting of permission on the matters specifically covered by the Bill, which have been dealt with in Committee and during the procedures of the House.
Whatever the merits of the proposals of the Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure for reform, the promoters of the Bill must use the present procedure. They have devoted considerable effort and resources to providing the planning case for the scheme. They have done so to the satisfaction of the House of Lords and the Bill has passed through the procedures of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
It is significant that neither of the local planning authorities in the development corporation area—Cardiff city council and Vale of Glamorgan borough council— petitioned against the Bill or raised the matter dealt with by new clause I with the promoters. That is for one good and simple reason. Cardiff Bay development corporation is not an appointed body that can ride roughshod through the planning system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West seems to believe. Hon. Members appear to be unaware that the corporation, uniquely among the urban development corporations, does not control planning powers. Its only planning power is to require that a planning application be referred to the Secretary of State if it disagrees with the way in which the local authority proposes to deal with the application. It has a right of


appeal if a planning application is turned down, as does any other applicant. Hon. Members do not seem to have understood that.
Not once in the four years during which the Cardiff Bay development corporation has existed has it had recourse to the appeal procedure. That is because the role of the local authorities must be understood and respected by the development corporation.
There are three specific amendments. Amendment No. 45 is an unnecessary further restriction and amendments Nos. 79 and 80 are both equally unacceptable in their effect. They are also contradictory because amendment No. 79 deletes clause 97 and amendment No. 80 amends the clause. The core of my argument is that the new clause and amendments are not needed. We have a system that is satisfactory to the local authorities and everyone else involved in these processes.

Mr. Rowlands: I support the new clause. We should be pushing at an open door here. I am surprised at the negative view taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on new clause 1. What we seek is encapsulated in subsection (3) of the new clause, which says:
Nothing in this Act shall constitute an approval, in outline, in principle or otherwise, for the purposes of the Act of 1990, and any application for planning permission for the carrying out of the works shall be determined entirely on its own merits.
For some considerable time hon. Members on both sides of the House and Ministers have been worried about the balance between the use of the private Bill procedure and of statutory planning procedures, which are subject to local public inquiries. The careful balance struck between the two procedures has taxed and interested the House, its Committees and, indeed, the Government.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure of July 1988. He made no mention of it, but that is fair enough. The report described vividly and at some length the interesting balance that needs to be struck between using the private Bill procedure and allowing statutory planning procedures to operate. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend and every other hon. Member present to the anxieties expressed by the Committee in July 1988.
I understand my hon. Friend when he says that there has been agreement between the local authorities and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. However, they are not the people whom we should consider. We should consider the genuine individual objectors and petitioners such as citizens who are opposed to an authority, whether a development corporation or a democratically elected county or city council. The wishes, feelings and rights of individual householders, groups of residents and others affected by proposals should be taken into account through proper procedures. That is what should concern us most and what is at the heart of our new clause.

Mr. Pike: Is not it important to recognise that many ordinary members of the public, such as those to whom my hon. Friend refers, consider it far more difficult to petition against a private Bill than to object to a normal planning application?

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. That was the very point that I was about to make and which the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure

came across when it took evidence. Paragraph 37 of that report is relevant to our new clause and makes the point which my hon. Friend has just made. It says:
The advocates of non-parliamentary procedures was mostly petitioners, who said that they were better treated in local public inquiries. They complained that in private bill procedure the initiative, and control of the timetable, lie with the promoter. In their opinion, public inquiries generally involve better prior consultation and seem to give a better chance of stopping the development altogether.
My hon. Friend rightly says that the planning authorities and the Cardiff Bay development corporation would prefer to proceed by private Bill procedure rather than through statutory planning inquiries. If is often the petitioners who feel that this is a strange world far removed from their usual experience. Turning up at a local planning inquiry is part and parcel of the community's experience. That is the first and most important point. New clause 1 simply seeks to offer individual citizens, householders and residents the right to have their case properly heard before an independent inspector at a local planning inquiry. Irrespective of where one stands on the merits of the proposal, we should be concerned about the rights of individuals to object.

Dr. John Marek: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says, but am I right that, although the local authority might have agreed with the development company, the planning committee of a local authority acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and must not be confused with the local authority? I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that that is essentially the difference.

Mr. Rowlands: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is the second intervention that I have accepted. It again illustrates vividly the case for new clause 1—that the planning process familiar to so many people in our community should be available to them.

Mr. Michael: For the record, does my hon. Friend accept that the consideration of the Bill and its implications for planning and other processes have been through the local authorities, including consideration by the planning committees which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, have semi-judicial responsibilities?

Mr. Rowlands: Yes, I am sure that a number of consultations of one kind or another have taken place. What we are saying is that the most important and familiar procedure which allows householders and groups of householders to exercise their rights at a local public inquiry and to raise their objections before an independent inspector has not been available to large numbers of residents in the communities concerned and that the private Bill procedure prevents them from exercising that right—unless my hon. Friend is willing to waive his opposition and hostility to the new clause and accept that some sort of planning inquiry procedure should prevail.

Mr. Rogers: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for having been absent during part of his speech. He might have dealt with this point, but, if not, can my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) deal with it now? If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, there is no real change in planning procedures as a result of the Bill, why is it necessary to have clause 97 relating to the


modification of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971? If we are simply seeking to delete it, as in amendment No. 79, or to replace it with a new clause, why cannot that be accepted? If everybody wants planning procedures to carry on as normal, why have a derogation within the Bill?

Mr. Rowlands: I do not have the mental agility to leap to clause 97 and I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his point if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying. The point is that the people in the community will not have the right to a local planning inquiry unless new clause 1 is accepted.
Those are not my views; those are views culled by the Joint Committee which, when it investigated the private Bill procedure in 1988, came to the conclusion which I started to read and which I will now complete. It went on to say:
"They"—
the petitioners—
see public inquiries as less intimidating, more local and less adversarial, running to a more reliable timetable, with less arbitrary proceedings, more facilities for objectors and more generous rules of locus.
That is a pretty powerful case to make—that a process of such profound concern as developments of the kind incorporated in the Bill should be subjected to that type of planning inquiry alongside whatever action we wish to take in the House. That makes the case.
Incidentally, I do not agree with the rest of the paragraph. The Joint Committee also argues that planning inspectors are more expert and more dedicated than are Members of Parliament. As we have demonstrated this evening, we are a dedicated group of Members. We are concerned and we will be extremely thorough. My hon. Friend has been one of the most thorough of all in serving on the Committee. Nevertheless, it is interesting that that is the perception of the private Bill procedure in the House concerning issues which will profoundly affect individuals and the rights, livelihoods, homes, immediate locality and environment of so many people.
The case was made, not by me or the objectors to the Bill, but by the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. In paragraph 40 the Committee concluded
that the process of decision-making by Government based upon the holding of a public local inquiry has many advantages in principle over private bill procedure … it offers a more familiar forum both for promoters and petitioners, an opportunity for local participation in decision-making, and detailed scrutiny of the proposal by full-time professional inspectors who are required to produce reasoned reports. In particular, it allows the planning and evironmental issues to be thoroughly reviewed. The Government has apparently used its influence in one or two exceptional cases over the years to persuade promoters of private bills to follow ordinary planning procedures so as to secure consideration of the planning aspects of their schemes at a public inquiry, and is prepared to do so again.
Sadly, the Government are heavily committed, as we found out from the letter of the Secretary of State for Wales, to a one-sided view of the Bill. Unless the Under-Secretary of State rises to his feet sooner or later and says that he supports the procedure that we are trying to introduce in new clause 1—the Committee found that Governments encourage promoters of private Bills to include in those Bills provision for local public inquiries

—we have seen no evidence in relation to this Bill that the Government are willing to allow local people to have such rights.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is portraying the Secretary of State as a Stalinist in this matter. We on the Opposition Benches are attempting to de-Stalinise the private Bill procedure by introducing some form of democratic control. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there are three possible ways of de-Stalinising the Bill. One would be to submit it to a public inquiry. The second would be to submit it to a referendum. The third is that it should incorporate, voluntarily and happily, new clause 1 and the other amendments that have been grouped with it. That would give the local authority some reserve powers to say that as it will be the legatee of the development in 20 years time it wants to play a part now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that at no time during the past four years has Cardiff city council planning committee decided to use the procedure to refer matters to the Secretary of State on appeal. It is obvious why that is so. It knows that the Welsh Office will side with the Cardiff Bay development corporation because the parent of the Cardiff Bay development corporation is the Welsh Office and it can always use that threat. That democratic deficit is there at all times. I know that I am a poor substitute for the Under-Secretary of State on this matter, if on no other, in giving assent to new clause 1, but my hon. Friend must be able to tell the House firmly that in some way we should de-Stalinise the Bill and make it a more democratic procedure.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend uses colourful language, but I should like to put the case more modestly to the Under-Secretary. I have a simple question for him to which I seek a response. When the Joint Committee investigated the interesting balance between the use of the private Bill procedure and local planning inquiries it found that, on previous occasions, the Government were willing to persuade the promoters of a private Bill to use ordinary planning procedures. The Government repeated their willingness to pursue that practice when they gave evidence to the Joint Committee. The Committee recorded that the Government were willing to use their influence.
to persuade promoters of private bills to follow ordinary planning procedures
to secure the consideration of the planning aspects of any scheme at a public inquiry. Is the Minister willing to give us that assurance again? Are the Government willing to exercise their due influence with the promoters of the Bill to establish a procedure to allow a local planning inquiry on the planning aspects of the Bill? In evidence to the Joint Committee the Government said that they were willing to continue to exercise that influence. I should happily give way to the Minister to hear his response. I hope that the Minister will make a contribution to explain why the Government are not willing to use their influence on this occasion, as they have in the past, to secure a local planning inquiry. The Minister owes us an explanation of the Government's stand on the Bill.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend's request to the Minister is legitimate given the evidence that has been submitted by the Government to the Joint Committee. Does my hon. Friend consider the silence of the Under-Secretary and the


absence of the Secretary of State as evidence of their part in the web of conspiracy, deceit and corruption that seems to surround the Bill?

Mr. Rowlands: That is part and parcel of the one-sided view of the Government towards the Bill.
When I was Minister at the Welsh Office I was warned constantly, and properly, that on issues that might be subject to planning inquiries of one kind or another one had to stay neutral because of one's quasi-judicial role. [NON. MEMBERS: "Queasy?"] Queasy and quasi. As a Minister one had to retain a genuine quasi-judicial role and one had to have no strong feelings for or against any development. One had to retain one's objectivity when things landed on one's desk as a result of a planning inspector's report.
The Joint Committee found that the Government had exercised their influence in previous private Bills, but perhaps this time they are wholeheartedly on one side of the argument. Perhaps they do not want to exercise a quasi-judicial role in relation to certain key planning issues.

Dr. Marek: I believe that my hon. Friend should repeat his request for the Minister to intervene. I noted earlier that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) had a note passed to him. Perhaps he is in two minds as to whether he should concede on this issue and allow the public in the Cardiff area to have some say and to have their voice heard. If the Minister stood up now and said that he believed in public participation and that the public voice should be heard, it might tip the balance for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) should persist in seeking to persuade the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to make the Government's position clear.

Mr. Rowlands: I should happily give way to the Minister to explain whether the Government are willing to continue to exercise their influence—as they told the Joint Committee and as they have done in the past—to ensure that a planning inquiry is held so that the local community can lodge their objections in the most familiar way to them. We all know that the Minister will not get on his feet because he is a naturally shy type. He is self-effacing and always seeks to disappear into the greenness of the background in the new grey image of the Government.
What is even more curious about the Government's position and the Minister's silence is the fact that the Government provided a formal response to the report published in July 1988 by the Joint Committee—perhaps the Minister has not read it. That response was entitled "Private Bills and New Procedures—A Consultation Document". It seems that consultation was in even before the disappearance of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). That consultation document was issued in June 1990 in response to the Joint Committee report.

Mr. Morgan: No dithering there.

Mr. Rowlands: It is extremely dithery when one reads it. That document gave the Government's considered response to the Joint Committee's interesting report on the balance between the private Bill procedure and a local planning inquiry. The Government's response came down

in favour of legislation in order to support the process for local planning inquiries as opposed to following the private Bill procedure. The Government referred to special orders that would be issued to enable such inquiries to take place. Therefore, the Government endorsed the fun-damental drift of the Joint Committee report.
What is even more interesting are the examples that the Government cited that could be subject to the new type of procedure recommended by the Joint Committee and endorsed by the Government in their response.
In paragraph 49 the consultation document states:
In most years there are also a small number of other works bills promoted. Some of these are introduced where the proposed works would interfere with navigation; current examples are the River Tees Barrage and Crossing, the Cardiff Bay Barrage".
So, in the Government's positive response to the Joint Committee report, which recommended some form of local planning inquiry, they referred to the Bill and the works connected with the Cardiff bay barrage. Therefore I can think of no reason why the Minister would not agree to such a planning inquiry now. The Government have already said that they intend to introduce primary legislation to enable such planning inquiries to be established. Our new clause therefore merely proposes what is already Government policy.
I know that the Under-Secretary was not a Minister in June 1990, but there is such a thing as collective responsibility, which is retrospective. In 1990 the Minister was a right-winger; goodness knows on what wing he is now—in fact, he has no wing as he is sedentary.
We have a right to know whether the Government's response in June 1990 to the recommendations of the Joint Committee for planning procedures and inquiries to be part and parcel of the investigation of petitioners' rights means that the Government will support the new clause tonight. After all, the Government cited the Bill as an illustration of why they believed that the Joint Committee's recommendations had force. Will the Government support the new clause, at least in principle? Will they say that they will exercise influence with the promoters so that a planning inquiry is included in the progress of the Bill, or will they insist upon such an inquiry as a condition of their continuing support for the Bill because such practice is in accordance with established Government policy?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend has made an excellent case for this issue at least to be decided by the people in the area. Unfortunately, he was so engrossed in building his case that he was unable to see exactly what the Under-Secretary was doing. He was wandering up to the Box to consult the civil servants and he is now writing a private note. Therefore, the critical part of my hon. Friend's arguments about the Cardiff bay barrage being subject to consultation has, I fear, not been heard by the Minister. He should hear it and we deserve an answer from him on whether he will back what has been put into the consultation paper.

Mr. Rowlands: A double silence is certainly not golden. I have one other question to ask the Minister. Has he seen the Government document called "Private Bills and New Procedures—A Consultation Document"? As I understand it, in the Welsh Office he deals with planning inquiries and planning issues. Has he seen a document? If so, is he dissociating himself from the Government's


conclusions? Even if he is unwilling to exercise the influence that we hear the Government have been willing to exercise for private Bill promoters to encourage planning inquiries, is he at least willing to say that the Government—either this one or the next—will introduce legislation to ensure that planning inquiries are part and parcel of the process? There would be a consensus in support of such legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not debating the report on private Bill procedure and that his remarks must be directly related to the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. Rowlands: I got carried away, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I think that it was very much in order to say that new clause I would ensure that planning procedure provisions were incorporated into the Bill. It was the conclusion of the report of a Joint Committee of the House that such procedure should be part of the process—or, indeed, a substitute for private Bills themselves. I was also drawing attention to the fact that the Government were endorsing—or appeared to endorse—much of the principle behind that conclusion.
New clause 1(3) accords with the general drift of Government policy. Therefore, why are not the Government backing, if not the new clause, the principle that we are trying to establish of a local planning inquiry to go alongside the private Bill procedure?

Mr. Morgan: There is one possible explanation for the Minister's silence. We all know that he is a member of the No Turning Back group—perhaps he is also a Member of the "No Getting Up group".
There is another point to which I wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—the need for the weight of opinion to be reflected in a democratic mechanism. That is the purpose of new clause 1. There were a record number of objectors to the Bill, many of them resident in my constituency. They were able to exercise a limited right because the Committee chose—we are grateful for it—to hold one week's proceedings in Cardiff. However, that hardly answers the need for a formal democratic expression of opinion. Although it is possible to petition Parliament, if Parliament wishes to sweep objectors aside by the use of the payroll vote, it will do so. People may have had a moment of glory in appearing before the Committee in Cardiff and will have read the minority report of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), but that is not the same as being able to have the powers that we seek to incorporate into the Bill in new clause 1.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I wish to underline the Government's conclusion. I have some doubts about whether we should hand the whole procedure over to a local planning inquiry. That and a private Bill must go together. If not, there would be no opportunity, as would be granted under new clause 18, to debate the financial consequences. In that case, local planning inquiries would not be the right vehicle—this place is the correct vehicle in which to deal with public

expenditure consequences. For hearing petitioners' objections, the local planning inquiry procedure is the apposite method with which to deal with these issues.
In their response to the Joint Committee's report, even the Government said that they considered it preferable
to draft the legislation establishing the order-making procedures covering rail and light rapid transit proposals in such a way that it can be extended by subordinate legislation for use to authorise other works projects … such as barrages".
We come back to the Bill. The report mentions barrages
and canal works … which would otherwise require approval by a private Act of Parliament.
The Government concluded that barrage developments of this kind should be subject to a planning procedure as opposed to the private Bill procedure. I doubt whether it should be subject to one or the other—I believe that a mixture of both is essential in such instances.
Why is the Minister so coy? Will he at least say that, in principle, he supports the new clause or the principle behind it? It merely supports what is likely to happen, whichever Government are in power—primary legislation to create such an order-making power, a genuine right to planning procedure and the right of citizens to have local planning inquiries so that their wishes and views can be heard in an environment which is more suitable for the average citizen than that of a private Bill hearing.
We should not have to argue—the door should be open. The Minister should be with us, not against us.

Mr. Rogers: I am not sure whether to support the new clause. Hon. Members will see from the Amendment Paper that I have not subscribed to it. I say that to explain to my hon. Friends who join me in opposing part of the Bill that I oppose only part of the Bill. If it is necessary to hold the Bill up on a point of principle concerning the barrage, I shall willingly go along with that. I realise that in the Cardiff bay area—the docks area—development is necessary. We need a plan for an area that is badly run down and needs support and investment for regeneration, but at some stage the purpose got lost, and somebody got hooked on the idea of a marina. Wherever the land meets the sea people say, "Let's build a marina. Let's throw a circle round to enclose the water." I understand why that is done. Yacht owners and boating fanatics want somewhere to park their boats.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is on his preamble, but he is making a Second Reading speech at the moment.

9 pm

Mr. Rogers: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to illustrate my support for the general principle of the Bill, because we may need accelerated planning procedures to resolve difficult problems. That is why my remarks were pertinent to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The discussion is political as well as purely semantic. I was saying that the promoters of the Bill lost their way because they got hooked up with the concept of a marine development. Everyone must have a marina, it seems. A rash of them has spread throughout south Wales, and now it is suggested that we take away from local authorities the full responsibility for planning supervision.
Were such marine developments to spring up all around our coasts, no natural coastline would be left. Later, I may use my prerogative as a geologist to explore the intricacies


of alluvial deposition, distortion of estuarine areas, and other fluvial problems that can result from development, but you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I did so now.
With the exception of the plans for building the bridge —the barrage—across the mouth of the river, there is an urgent need for speeded-up planning procedures for the docklands area. We are not talking about a normal state of affairs, and, in principle, I should like such procedures to be extended to other areas of industrial dereliction.
Why should the promoters of the Bill want to throw away the Bill, as they will surely do, just over the principle of overcoming planning regulations? They will not accept the new clause at this stage of the game because of the money involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) challenged the Minister to say whether he supported Government policy as laid clown in "Private Bills and New Procedures—A Consultation Document". The Minister must respond to that at some stage. I realise that his ability to respond quickly to questions thrown at him is limited, but he always presents himself as a man of principle, and I thought that his principles were loyalty and support for the Government. There could have been a knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps, without our noticing, he stood up and said that he supported the proposals in the document.

Mr. Rowlands: I would remind my hon. Friend—with some poignancy—that one of the most prominent members of the Joint Committee was Sir John Stradling Thomas. The Minister should respect his memory and his support for the proposals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stray into a discussion of the Joint Committee. His remarks must be directly related to the new clause and the amendments grouped with it.

Mr. Rogers: My remarks are pertinent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, simply because it is suggested that, under the new procedures, a similar clause should be included in every private Bill. The new clause says that one should appear in the Bill. We ask whether the Minister supports the proposal which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, was supported by the late hon. Member for Monmouth.
I cannot understand why the promoters will not accept the new clause. Some people seem to feel that they have discovered the holy grail, and that only one body can redevelop the area—the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The corporation has a role, but the local authority and—even more so—the people of the area have a role too. Their views can be expressed through Members of Parliament, but can be expressed just as legitimately in other ways. We have no particular skills. Like other local representatives, we are elected. The planning requirements of Cardiff and the docklands area will evolve, because the community will evolve. Within the 10 years derogation laid down in the Bill, any works started will be exempt from planning considerations, so there may come a time when reconsideration is required. What would be wrong with going through the normal planning procedure then?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that everything would remain

the same—that there would be planning applications and inquiries, and that local people would be able to involve themselves. If that is the case, why is clause 97 necessary?
It is fairly obvious that the Minister is, as it were, the Bill's second promoter. He responds to that with a cynical turn of his eyes and lips—

Mr. Morgan: That is his normal expression.

Mr. Rogers: It may be his normal expression, or it may be wind; I do not know. In any event, the expression was there.
The Minister may say, "We are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds, and we therefore have a vested interest, as do the taxpayers of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is their money, not that of the promoters, that is paying for the Bill." As a custodian of our money, perhaps the Minister can tell us why clause 97 is required. As we cannot obtain an answer from the promoters, let us have one from him.
We merely want to replace clause 97 with amendment No. 79—an entirely coincidental numerical palindrome. We want to ensure that the people of Cardiff are given a chance to participate. What is wrong with that? Why should participation be limited to the development corporation—people who have come in from outside, and who have substantial links with the Conservative party? We know that many of them have a cross-relationship with the Wales land authority. There is a nexus of sinister activity in south Wales, epitomised by the fact that the proposal was promoted originally by the then Secretary of State for Wales, Nicholas Edwards, formerly Member of Parliament for Pembroke and now Lord Crickhowell. He is a non-executive member of Associated British Ports, which owns 160 acres of valuable land right in the middle of this development.
Especially worrying is the conspiracy of silence with which we are met. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked the Minister to respond. Does the Minister really believe that behaving like a dummy will prevent people from seeing through the web of corruption?

Mr. Ron Davies: I was intrigued by my hon. Friend's reference to Lord Crickhowell. He rightly drew our attention to Lord Crickhowell's heavy involvement in the promotion of the Cardiff bay barrage. Has my hon. Friend read the report of the debate in the House of Lords that took place shortly before the Easter recess? That concerned another Bill proposing the construction of a barrage, across the River Usk at Newport.
I am sure that there is no connection between Lord Crickhowell's considerable interests in the Usk valley and his opposition to the barrage. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are no such sinister thoughts in his own mind?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that, in responding to that question, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will stay on the straight and narrow, and refer to the new clause and amendments.

Mr. Rogers: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not go down that particular valley for all the tea in China. Well, that is not strictly true. The Usk valley is wonderful.
We shall, of course, have the same problem in the next Parliament, when another private Bill, proposing the closure of the mouth of the Usk, will arrive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us deal with this Parliament. I shall not be here in the next Parliament.

Mr. Rogers: For that reason, the House will be very much worse off after the next election.

Mr. Morgan: In the light of your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, it may not be in order for my hon. Friend to deal fully with the Usk barrage, but it is relevant for the House to consider how odd it is that people of influence, such as Members of Parliament and ex-Members of Parliament, change their minds when other Bills of a similar nature are considered. Apart from Lord Crickhowell's change of view vis-a-vis the Cardiff bay barrage, which he practically fathered and funded before he left this House to become the director of company closely linked with it, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) opposed a mini-barrage that was proposed by a Labour-controlled county council but did not object to a much larger barrage that was proposed by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Rogers: I do not intend to comment on the motives of Conservative Members of Parliament and ex-Ministers. However, it is significant that the ex-Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Crickhowell, is chairman of the National Rivers Authority. The problem is that the person who is entrusted by the nation with the well-being of our rivers is intimately involved, with a resulting substantial conflict of interest, in the rivers Ely and Rhondda.

Dr. Kim Howells: And the Taff.

Mr. Rogers: Yes, and the Taff. God forbid that I should forget the Taff. The use of the word "Taffy" for Welshmen is thought to come from the river Taff, but I understand that it comes from a little further west—from a river in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), the river Teifi.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: No, the Taff.

Mr. Rogers: I apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has to some extent been corrupted by his hon. Friends. I am sure that he intends to return to the new clause.

Mr. Rogers: Yes. I see that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is here. Unfortunately, his Front Bench responsibilities chain him completely. I know that he would like to speak out on the matter. I do not know what he would say, but how nice it is to see him.

Mr. Michael: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Ron Davies (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the co-sponsor of the new clause. I have been waiting for two hours to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in order to question the judgment of the Chair on these matters.

Mr. Davies: That may well be the case, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has another point of order that does not reflect upon the judgment of the Chair, I shall take it after the Division.

Mr. Ian Grist(seated and covered): May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that this Division is taking an untoward length of time? I ask that some investigation be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am keeping an eye on the time.

The House having divided: Ayes, 163, Noes 29.

Division No. 113]
[9.13 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Grist, Ian


Alton, David
Hague, William


Amos, Alan
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Anderson, Donald
Hanley, Jeremy


Arbuthnot, James
Harris, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hawkins, Christopher


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Hayes, Jerry


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Haynes, Frank


Atkinson, David
Hind, Kenneth


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Holt, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Beggs, Roy
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Irvine, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Jack, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Janman, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jessel, Toby


Bowis, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Boyes, Roland
Key, Robert


Brazier, Julian
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bright, Graham
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knapman, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Buck, Sir Antony
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Burt, Alistair
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Callaghan, Jim
Lord, Michael


Cash, William
Maclean, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
McWilliam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mills, Iain


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cope, Rt Hon John
Monro, Sir Hector


Cormack, Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Couchman, James
Murphy, Paul


Cran, James
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Crowther, Stan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nicholls, Patrick


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Page, Richard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Parry, Robert


Day, Stephen
Patnick, Irvine


Dixon, Don
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Dorrell, Stephen
Porter, David (Waveney)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Riddick, Graham


Eastham, Ken
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Eggar, Tim
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Favell, Tony
Robertson, George


Fearn, Ronald
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Rowe, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Fookes, Dame Janet
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Foster, Derek
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Franks, Cecil
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Freeman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Fry, Peter
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shersby, Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Goodlad, Alastair
Snape, Peter






Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stott, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Strang, Gavin
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Gwilym Jones and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Alun Michael.


Trippier, David



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
McMaster, Gordon


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Buckley, George J.
Marek, Dr John


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cummings, John
Morley, Elliot


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Redmond, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rogers, Allan


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Ted Rowlands and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Ron Davies.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now required to put—

Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take the point of order afterwards. I am now required to put the Question on new clause 1.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 149.

Division No. 114]
[9.29 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Murphy, Paul


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Redmond, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Rogers, Allan


Gordon, Mildred
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Illsley, Eric



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Rhodri Morgan and


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Dr. John Marek.


Morley, Elliot



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alton, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amos, Alan
Boswell, Tim


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Boyes, Roland


Atkinson, David
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Beggs, Roy
Buckley, George J.





Budgen, Nicholas
McWilliam, John


Burt, Alistair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Callaghan, Jim
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Cash, William
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Michael, Alun


Chapman, Sydney
Mills, Iain


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Monro, Sir Hector


Cope, Rt Hon John
Moss, Malcolm


Cormack, Patrick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Couchman, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Parry, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Patnick, Irvine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Day, Stephen
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Rhodes James, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Riddick, Graham


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Duffy, A. E. P.
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Robertson, George


Eastham, Ken
Roe, Mrs Marion


Eggar, Tim
Rowe, Andrew


Favell, Tony
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Fearn, Ronald
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Fookes, Dame Janet
Shaw, David (Dover)


Foster, Derek
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Franks, Cecil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Freeman, Roger
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Fry, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gale, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Goodlad, Alastair
Stern, Michael


Grist, Ian
Stevens, Lewis


Hague, William
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hanley, Jeremy
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Harris, David
Strang, Gavin


Hayes, Jerry
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Haynes, Frank
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hind, Kenneth
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Home Robertson, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Slrat'd-on-A)
Tredinnick, David


Hughes, Robert[...] (Harrow W)
Trippier, David


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Irvine, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Jack, Michael
Watts, John


Jackson, Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


Jessel, Toby
Widdecombe, Ann


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Key, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wood, Timothy


Kirkhope, Timothy
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Knapman, Roger
Younger, Rt Hon George


Knight, Greg (Derby North)



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Gwilym Jones and


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
'Mr. Paul Flynn.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the difficulties that we had prior to the last Division. If you felt that I was challenging your authority in any way, I wish to make it clear that I was seeking advice rather than questioning your judgment. I am sure that you will understand the point that concerns me. I am one of the co-signatories of the last group of amendments that we were discussing. You will note that new clause 1 is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and myself. The


amendments grouped with it are also in our names. The debate lasted for just under two hours. I was present throughout and showed my interest in that debate on a number of occasions. I had deliberately not made a large number of interventions, as other hon. Members had done, although I intervened when I felt that I had a contribution to make.
I was surprised, first, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) moved the closure motion, although I understand that it was perfectly proper for him to do so. Secondly, I was surprised that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, decided to accept that motion when you knew that I was waiting to catch your eye and at least four or five of my hon. Friends had sat patiently throughout the debate, had not intervened and wanted to make contributions of their own. It might assist the conduct of the business that we are about to debate if we had some idea from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether your judgment—which we would not wish to question—would be exercised in the light of the length of time that has been taken up or the number of speakers still waiting to speak. I do not in any way wish to intrude on your prerogative which is properly yours, but it would assist the many Opposition Members who wish to speak during the coming hours if they had some idea of the factors in your mind in deciding whether to accept the closure.

Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Much of the debate, particularly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), was concerned with whether the Minister would make a statement about whether the Government intended to apply the document to which he had referred. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), I do not question your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as the closure motion came when it did and you accepted it, was there a communication from the Minister to you before that to show that the Minister would not respond to the various challenges that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney had made to him? Was there a sign as to whether the Government agreed with their consultative paper and the position described by the Minister? Did the Minister inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he did not wish to respond, make a speech or intervene during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, or did you decide that, regardless of whether the Minister intended to speak, you would not allow him to do so and would accept the closure motion?

Dr. Marek: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I and about four or five other hon. Members sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not complain that I did not do so and you called the closure, but as I had a number of new points to make and some serious concerns about the new clause, I am worried whether the Minister will have time in any debate tonight to give the Department's view. Do you have any power, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ascertain in advance whether the Department and the Minister wish to contribute?
After the previous debate, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must know that the Department is concerned with getting the Bill through the House. I feel that it is only right that it should be given every chance to put its case.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here during the debate.

Mr. Redmond: I accept your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I always accept the ruling from the Chair. While it is perfectly true that I was not in the Chamber for the closure motion, I am deeply concerned. I am aware that you, as Deputy Speaker, seek at all times to uphold Back Bench opinions in relation to democracy in the Chamber. I am obviously concerned that a number of hon. Members wish to express an opinion on this important Bill. I have no wish to challenge your ruling on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the fact that a Division was called on the closure is a serious worry to Back Benchers.
In view of the representations that have been made in points of order, will you rule that in future in this important debate on the Bill any Back-Bencher wishing to speak will be allowed to do so without tactics from the Government, who obviously support the Bill? You will be aware of the previous arguments, in points of order before the debate started this evening, about the Secretary of State's letter that the Government are strongly supporting the Bill but decline to answer Back Benchers' questions. Will you rule that you will refuse to accept closure motions while there are hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to hon. Members for the courteous way in which they have raised their points of order. I recognise that some hon. Members were hoping to speak in the debate and were not able to do so when I accepted the closure motion. The House well knows that the Chair has the power to accept a closure motion when it judges it appropriate, and the Chair never gives its reasons for so doing.
In answer to the other question, every debate to come will be judged on its merits by whomever is in the Chair. These are hypothetical questions. We listen carefully to the debate, and anything that may have occurred during debate on the first group of amendments in no way creates a precedent for the amendments that are to come.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it further to the same point of order?

Mr. Rogers: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet when I was interrupted by the closure motion. It would have been far more appropriate if the motion had been put between speeches. I had not been speaking for very long. If that is to be the case, and if people who want to offer legitimate arguments are to be excluded from doing so, I do not feel that we are receiving our proper rights as Parliamentarians. We were elected to speak here, and so long as we conform to the Standing Orders and procedures of the House, as laid down, we have a right to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that I can add. I have to exercise my judgment in the Chair and I have done that to the best of my ability.

New Clause 5

SOURCES OF LEACHATE

'Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.'.—[Dr. Kim Howells.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Kim Howells: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
New Clause 6—Phosphate and nitrate stripping—
'Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.'.
New Clause 8—Sewer outfalls—
'Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls discharging directly into the inland bay or into the waters of the rivers discharging into the Bay or the tributaries thereof, showing the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement thereof and the agreement of the owner of each outfall to such removal, relocation or improvement.'.
New Clause 17—Elimination of risks of pollution—
'Before commencement of impounding by means of the barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish proposals for the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the city council that no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur.'.
New Clause 19—Maintenance of ground water standards—
'Before the commencement of impounding the under-takers shall commission and publish proposals for the proper disposal of algal scum arising in the inland bay that are consistent with the preservation and maintenance of good water quality standards at the site of disposal and in adjoining waters.'.—

Dr. Howells: Two rivers are to be dammed—the Taff and the Ely. They constantly carry effluent and litter down to the Bristol channel from what is probably the most densely populated area in Wales.

Mr. Rogers: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his speech, but I cannot allow him to proceed by closing the number at two river valleys. One of the most substantial contributions to the River Taff is from the two Rhondda rivers which meet at Porth and enter the Taff within 100 yards of my hon. Friend's—

Dr. Howells: House.

Mr. Rogers: No. My hon. Friend lives not in a house but in a home, and the river comes very close to it. I know that he is diligent in ensuring that that river is properly cleaned and is not polluted in any way. Does he not think it rather odd that—

Mr. Paul Flynn: Resign.

Mr. Rogers: It is a resigning matter.
When he is talking about the pollution of our rivers, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr.

Howells) will, at some stage, refer to the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, who has the prime responsibil-ity of ensuring clean rivers, not only in south Wales, but throughout the United Kingdom. I refer to Lord Crickhowell, who is a well-paid non-executive director of Associated British Ports, which has a strong interest in the Cardiff bay development. Lord Crickhowell was the Secretary of State for Wales when it was decided to put public money into the land owned by the company of which he is now a substantial director.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for his learned intervention.
I was about to mention the extensive involvement of Rhondda—I have been told that I am not supposed to call it "the Rhondda". To amplify my original point, the rivers that I have mentioned flow through some of the most densely populated areas of Wales. Almost 77,000 people reside within Rhondda's administrative boundaries; almost 64,000 people live in Cynon Valley; 58,000 people live in Merthyr; and almost 95,000 people live in Taff-Ely.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is referring yet again to my constituency. Perhaps he will tell the House that, of the 77,000 people who reside in Rhondda, 35,000 voted for me.

Dr. Howells: I am again astounded at my hon. Friend's knowledge and will learn from it.
At least 295,000 people live close to the rivers that drain into the Taff and the Ely, the rivers that are to be dammed, and that does not include the people who live in Cardiff or its environs. Probably nearly half a million people live close to those rivers. I make that point because it is important that people who do not know the area realise the implications of the provisions for the quality of water in those rivers.
We in the industrial areas of Wales have long neglected our rivers and the quality of their water. I have said on other occasions that I would dearly love the rivers of the industrial valleys of south Wales to resemble those in the area represented by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), which are some of the most marvellous rivers in Wales. I do not see why the rivers of industrial south Wales cannot resemble those rivers.
This is of direct bearing to the new clauses that we are discussing because if Cardiff—[Interruption.] I am afraid that the Minister does not seem very interested, but I understand that he has responsibility for these matters.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that during the previous debate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spent at least five minutes trying to encourage the Minister to rise to give the House the benefit of his wisdom—if he has any? Does he also agree that it is a sign of absolute arrogance and an offence to the House that, while he is making a speech of critical importance to his constituency and to the outcome of this debate, the Minister has nothing better to do than to sit on the Front Bench like a grinning martinet, chatting to his hon. Friends behind him? The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) would be better advised to listen to my hon. Friend's speech.

Dr. Howells: I hope that the Minister will take note of what I am saying because an intelligent response from him at the end of the debate would help him to salvage at least some votes in the coming general election.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I must advise my hon. Friend that I visit the Minister's constituency of Pembroke once, sometimes twice, a year without fail. The people in the pubs in which I drink in Meinclochog are appalled by the Minister's behaviour, and therefore—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. That is not relevant to the new clauses.

Mr. Sedgemore: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments are not relevant to the new clauses.

Mr. Sedgemore: If you will allow me to develop the point, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to develop the point. He must be more specific and deal with the new clauses. That would be welcome.

Mr. Sedgemore: If I could be more specific and deal with the new clauses, the question often asked about the Minister is now being asked in the House on this Bill. Unlike most English hon. Members, I have visited the area of the Cardiff bay barrage. I have come down on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). The question often asked is, why does not the Minister know what he is talking about?

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes his point very well—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That at this day's sitting, the British Technology Group Bill and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 20.

Division No. 115]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amess, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Anderson, Donald
Butler, Chris


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Atkinson, David
Chapman, Sydney


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Beggs, Roy
Colvin, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cran, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James





Durant, Sir Anthony
Neubert, Sir Michael


Eggar, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Favell, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fearn, Ronald
Norris, Steve


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Page, Richard


Flynn, Paul
Parry, Robert


Fookes, Dame Janet
Patnick, Irvine


Forman, Nigel
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Fry, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gale, Roger
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Price, Sir David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Rhodes James, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Riddick, Graham


Goodlad, Alastair
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Grist, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hague, William
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hampson, Dr Keith
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hanley, Jeremy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hawkins, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayes, Jerry
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Haynes, Frank
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hind, Kenneth
Shersby, Michael


Holt, Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Home Robertson, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stern, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stevens, Lewis


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Howells, Geraint
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Strang, Gavin


Hunter, Andrew
Summerson, Hugo


Irvine, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jack, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jackson, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Janman, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Jessel, Toby
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thome, Neil


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Key, Robert
Tracey, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tredinnick, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Trippier, David


Knapman, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Latham, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lawrence, Ivan
Watts, John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wheeler, Sir John


Maclean, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wood, Timothy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Yeo, Tim


Mates, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Michael, Alun



Mills, Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Monro, Sir Hector





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Morley, Elliot


Dalyell, Tarn
Nellist, Dave


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Pike, Peter L.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Redmond, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Spearing, Nigel


Illsley, Eric



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Allan Rodgers and


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Alan Williams.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]

As amended, again further considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dr. Kim Howells: May I continue what I started by reading out new clause 5. It is important that everyone knows exactly what it stands for. The language is somewhat technical, but perhaps by explaining it I may be able to make my point more clearly. New clause 5 states:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.
That is central to the future of the project. I shall be interested to know what the defence for continuing the project could possibly be until the problems are solved. I give notice that there are many tips in south Wales which issue leachate into water courses and water tables which drain into the tributaries of the Taff and the Ely which will be affected by the barrage.
The Institution of Civil Engineers defined leachate in a recent publication. I shall read it for the benefit of hon. Members. It states:
Leachate consists of water which must not be allowed to flow from the sites carrying with it, in solution or suspension, chemicals, metal contaminants and organic matter. Care is needed to ensure that this leachate is not discharged into watercourses but some, or all, may percolate through the ground to underground aquifers. The main problem is generally caused by the continuing decomposition of the suspended organic matter which absorbs oxygen in this process. This oxygen requirement, known as the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is one measure of the 'strength' of the leachate.
If any leachate is discharged into a watercourse, it will absorb oxygen from the water to satisfy this demand and complete its decomposition, and unless the dilution is such that the watercourse can cope with this demand, the level of oxygen in the water can fall below that necessary to support fish and animal life and these will suffocate. In extreme circumstances, the levels can drop below that necessary to support plant life with disastrous results. A further problem which can occur is the production of ammonia which can also adversely affect fish and plant life.
I have quoted that report on pollution and its containment because it is important that we understand just how serious it will be if proper measures are not taken to prevent leachate from tips—whether in the immediate environs of the barrage or further upstream—feeding into the tributaries of those rivers. This is not a whimsical objection, but one that is recognised throughout the scientific and engineering world as absolutely central to any project of this type, especially one in such close proximity to so many people.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend mentioned the substantial danger of the accumulation of salts and other mineral materials in enclosed waters.
As he said, it is not a whimsical proposition. In a natural situation, substantial salt marshes develop, for example, where there has been development of spits such as those in the mouth of the river Dyfi and the Mawddach estuary in Cardigan bay. Wherever there is a shifting of alluvial material at the entrance to estuaries, there will be

significant problems. My hon. Friend is right to point out the significant danger of completely enclosed areas such as estuaries.
I should like to make a point to which I am sure that my hon. Friend will return. If the barrage created one acre of extra land for industrial development, it could be argued that the barrage was a good thing. On the other hand, the barrage will do nothing for the industrial development of Cardiff.

Dr. Howells: That is a good point. I have heard many detrimental remarks from the sponsors of the Bill about the grounds upon which the Bill is being opposed. I have heard it said—very stupidly—that a development such as this should not founder on concern for waders or other bird wildlife in the area. I would argue that unless the problem is solved, the impounding of water containing leachate presents an enormous health risk not just to the wildlife which may inhabit the lagoon but to the people living around it.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right that these are serious matters. In fairness, however, we are considering the amendments that he proposes. He referred specifically to leachate in the immediate area, although I know he also referred to other matters. I would point out to him that leachate removal is dealt with in clause 69(7)(a), which requires the Ferry road, Ferry road tip, Cowslip, Cogan and Penarth dock outfalls to be removed, relocated or diverted to the satisfaction of the river authority. I say that in recognition of the importance of the issue to which my hon. Friend refers and to emphasise that under the Bill it will be dealt with to the satisfaction of the authority.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am sure that he means his remarks to be constructive. I would point out, however, that new clause 5 does not limit itself to the Ferry road tip, to which a later amendment refers. I propose to deal with that question because it is not dealt with properly in the Bill.
I will read new clause 5 to my hon. Friend. It says:
the undertakers shall produce"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already read the new clause to the House, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) can read it for himself.

Dr. Howells: I fear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the sponsor of the Bill has not read or understood new clause 5, which refers to
sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay".
In layman's language, that means the water that feeds into the lagoon. I have tried to show that it is not simply a question of water that may originate in Cardiff and the surrounding areas. We are talking about the rivers that are to be dammed, which are considerable bodies of water draining large areas which, because of our industrial heritage, include some of the most poisonous tips anywhere in Britain.

Mr. Ron Davies: I will give my hon. Friend a graphic example of the problem to which he refers. He and I represent neighbouring constituencies, and my hon. Friend's area, like mine, contains many mineworkings. In the past couple of months, the National Rivers Authority has been having great difficulty dealing with iron-rich


water in the Rhymney valley, which comes from the old Britannia colliery. Now that the colliery has closed and the pumping has stopped, the workings are flooded. The leachate is rich in iron and other salts and is polluting what had previously been a clean river. Exactly the same circumstances could arise with the Taff, in which case precisely the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred would arise.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure that if we chose, we could be here all night giving instances of colleries, iron works and so on that feed into rivers. I do not want to do that. There is no point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will understand my point full well.

Mr. Michael: I appreciate the seriousness of the issues to which my hon. Friend is referring. I am merely trying to emphasise the fact that that seriousness is appreciated by everybody. Discussions have been held with the water and rivers authorities on the environmental management of the impoundment and neither authority considers that the proposals that are the subject of the new clauses need to be included in the Bill to protect their statutory function with regard to the environment.
It is not a question of disregarding the issues; the new clauses are not needed to ensure that the topics that my hon. Friend rightly highlights are dealt with. They can be considered seriously without any amendments to the Bill.

Dr. Howells: I tabled the new clauses and amendments precisely because I do not share my hon. Friend's faith in the development corporation. I am not so confident that its long-term objective is to do something about the pollution that flows into the Taff and Ely; nor do I see in the Bill any explanation of how the modifications will be paid for. I believe—this is at the heart of my argument —that we are putting the cart before the horse if we build a barrage before we have cleaned up the rivers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has said, it is generally appreciated —not just in this country but around the world—that leachate is a major problem. To be fair to the Government—I am not often fair to them—I think that they have taken that on board and a good deal of work has already been done to try to discover how leachate can best be contained. The imminence of the barrage, however, increases the urgency. Although long-term plans to improve the quality of the water in the rivers may well be afoot, I fear that the barrage will arrive before the improvements. I require more concrete assurances to the contrary.
As I said earlier, the EEC has shown great concern about the matter, as has the European Council. In 1988, in Hanover, the Council invited the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to intensify their efforts to prevent water pollution; the Environment Council, in its turn, invited the Commission to submit proposals for measures required at Community level for the treatment of municipal sewage. Most of the proposals address the environmentally detrimental effect of effluents that are not sufficiently treated.
Such effluents are frequently put into the Taff and the Ely and their tributaries simply because—through no fault of the development corporation—not enough has been invested in the sewage treatment works in the past. I am

sure that many hon. Members are well aware that at times of high rainfall, for example, raw sewage is released into most of the rivers that either flow or drain into the Taff and the Ely.
The assurances that we have received from Welsh Water plc are far from satisfactory. Derogations have been granted, which I have criticised in the past and will criticise again. I am not at all confident that the treatment works will be improved in time for the construction of the barrage. I fear that a good deal of contaminated water will flow into it.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend has not yet touched on the microbiological contamination of the valleys rivers—

Mr. Flynn: That is a serious problem.

Mr. Davies: I welcome my hon. Friend's support. I share a boundary with him as well, and we have discussed the specific problem that has arisen along the River Rhymney at Michaelston-y-Vedw, and, indeed, affects all the south Wales rivers.
The Welsh water authority, as it used to be, constructed an outfall giving directly on to the river to deal with the surcharge in the sewers at the times of heavy rainfall. At such times, much of the surface run-off goes into the foul sewer and surcharges it; the sewer then discharges directly into the river. In the case of the Taff and the Ely, microbiological contamination is a very good guide to water quality. At the moment, that contamination is flushed out to sea, but after the construction of the barrage it will go straight into the lagoon.

Dr. Howells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me about that. I had not intended to refer to it; I thought the case was already strong enough. However, it is a good point.
I spoke recently to a friend of mine who is a practising pharmacist. He told me of his outrage when he discovered at a meeting of pharmacists that assistants in chemist shops, as well as the owners, flush out-of-date medicines down lavatories. Some of them are extremely toxic. They flow directly into the sewers. These toxic substances are also poured down common drains and flow into the rivers. That toxic concoction will eventually end up in the barrage.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is dealing with an extremely important and serious issue that is not resolved by the provisions in the Bill. He referred to raw sewage being discharged into rivers. Many of the south Wales valleys have new trunk foul sewers, but I take no pride in saying that the trunk sewer in my constituency has not been renewed. I hear complaints from constituents at my surgeries about the discharge of raw sewage into the Rhondda Fach and the Rhondda Fawr, both of which discharge into the Taff. Only last week I had a leter from one of the borough engineers in which he said that approval had been given for capital expenditure in order to control the discharge of foul sewage into the Rhondda Fach between Ferndale and Mardy. That scheme, however, will not be realised for many years. It is only one of many instances of breaks in the trunk foul sewer system in the Rhondda valley because of its peculair geography and narrow confines.

Dr. Howells: I am sure that my hon. Friend's point applies to many locations within this water catchment area. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) faces exactly the same problems in his constituency as I do. I know, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) faces grave problems over sewage disposal in her constituency.
The detrimental effects of municipal waste water are self-evident in our rivers, particularly in the Taff and the Ely. At the most superficial level, the discharge of untreated municipal waste water can cause noxious conditions and thus reduce the amenity value of rivers, lakes, estuaries and coasts. That point needs to be emphasised because the raison d'étre for the barrage scheme is that it should be an amenity. Given the state of the water flowing into it, it will not be much of an amenity. Indeed, it will be a health risk more than anything else. However, we may be able to deal with that matter in more detail at a later stage.
In fresh water, the reduction of dissolved oxygen and the introduction of ammonia and suspended solids can seriously reduce ecological quality, thus affecting a wide range of flora and fauna, including fish. We have suffered particularly badly from that. I have seen a beautiful painting—one that I am sure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would like to have on your wall—depicting Cardiff as it was before it was redeveloped by the Marquis of Bute. Coracles were shown being carried out of the waters of the Taff, which was one of the most famous salmon rivers in Wales. I understand that there is a chance that salmon will return. There has been something of an improvement in the water. The salmon now get as far as Pontypridd before finally succumbing.

Mr. Flynn: They could take only so much.

Dr. Howells: To make it that far, they had to be tough.
If the lagoon is to be an amenity, the water will have to be cleaned. But it will not be an amenity—it is as simple as that.

Mr. Michael: I should like to draw attention to the quality of water currently in Bute East dock. That is exactly the same water as will be held in the general bay area. I can assure my hon. Friend that the people who walk around it, and those who boat on it, regard it as a considerable amenity. One sees dragon boats on it at the weekend. It is much appreciated.

Dr. Howells: The point is well taken. However, I have to say that if my hon. Friend is prepared to take his children for walks around a polluted dock, that is up to him. I do not consider it to be much of an amenity.
The reduction of water quality can also affect water intended for abstraction and human consumption. In that context, one thinks of someone who happens to fall into an area of impounded water. People will inevitably fall into this one. Indeed, some may jump in—especially after the next election. Municipal waste water is discharged into the sea, making conditions unsuitable for bathing and for shell fish cultivation. But if the barrage is built, that will become an irrelevance, because the waters simply will not reach the sea in their present condition.
It is important that we take into account the fact that, despite the trends of the past decade, south Wales still contains many working factories, including chemical

plants. There are several very contentious chemical plants in my constituency. They are contentious because people have become much more environmentally aware. As a result of this awareness, the plants are subject to constant monitoring. That monitoring shows that the effluent from the factories is by no means satisfactory in all respects and at all times. It is very important that people should understand that the need for continued employment, balanced against the need to clean up the environment, will ensure that these factories remain in operation for a long time.
The current inadequacy of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—a subject that cannot be dealt with at length tonight—makes it obvious that improvements will not come over the next decade. I fear that discharges from waste water treatment plants are not always satisfactory because of the particularly noxious materials that are discharged by some factories and chemical plants. Certainly the water is not of a quality suitable for recycling.
It should be noted that over the past decade eutrophication has become a major problem in Community waters—certainly more so in our waters than anywhere else in the European Community. I am thinking especially of certain rivers and lakes. The proposal for a directive relating to municipal waste water treatment plants, together with the proposed directive concerning the protection of fresh coastal and marine waters against pollution caused by nitrates from diffuse sources, provides, inter alia, an opportunity for the European Community to take action to control the discharge of the two major nutrients—nitrogen and phosphorous—that are responsible for eutrophication. The barrage will not take advantage of that opportunity. On the contrary, its enormous cost will drain funds from projects that could control the discharge of such nutrients.
The EC directive lays down minimum requirements for the treatment of municipal waste and for the disposal of sludge, but because of the assimilative capacity of the waters into which treated waste waters are discharged it is proposed that the receiving waters should be classified into three types. It is important that we try to understand the quality of the water that will flow into the Taff and Ely, which will be dammed. It is proposed that, in general, a secondary or biological treatment will be required as a minimum. In more sensitive areas, additional treatment will be required to meet specific environmental needs such as the reduction of nutrients.
The Commission believes that, in principle, all municipal waste water discharged into marine waters should be heavily treated. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will agree wholeheartedly and endorse that proper and right aim. I do not intend to talk about the effect of the barrage on water tables, but we must consider whether it is possible to carry out these improvements and modifications before the barrage is built. I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's response to that, because it is critical to the viability of the project and its public acceptability.
The EC directive seeks to control the discharge of industrial waste waters that are of a similar nature to municpal waste water and that do not enter municipal waste water treatment plants before discharge into the environment. It is important to understand that the Commission felt that it was inappropriate to require member states to introduce what might be costly measures


to control municipal waste waters while ignoring discharges of comparable waste waters from industrial sources, especially where those discharges occur near one another. That is particularly important in south Wales because of the close proximity of the sources.

Mr. Rowlands: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with much interest. His remarks and observa-tions remind me that in my constituency, despite all the directives, planning powers and vigilance, a company suddenly dumped 6,000 barrels of toxic waste on the edge of a river. The National Rivers Authority and the Secretary of State for Wales—I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who upheld the decision of Rhymney Valley district council—rightly said that Euromet should not have dumped on the edge of the river bank. Despite those powers and vigilance, such disastrous problems still occur. It behoves us not to pass the Bill without checking and being vigilant. We are being far too careless with our environment in south Wales.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Such incidents have occurred many times in south Wales, and will continue to happen. We can never be infallible and such incidents will occur again and again.
My hon. Friend's point is relevant to the new clauses, because the Bill does not provide for an audit of possible contaminants, even those held at factory sites, in case such an incident occurs again. The problem is that there is insularity in the Bill which attempts to build almost a fortress around the Cardiff bay development. Although the promoters are pleased to tell us that the champagne will dribble out to our communities when the wealth starts coming in, they seem to ignore the fact that Cardiff has probably the most organic link of any city to its hinterland; Cardiff owes its development to the coal industry. Ecologically it is indivisible from its hinterland. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for making the point so well.
10.45 pm
There are many industrial sites within that drainage area. There are already high pollution levels in the waters of the Taff and the Ely. The EEC directive to which I have already referred lays down criteria for the identification of sensitive and less sensitive areas.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend rightly took an example from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who shares the representation of Rhymney valley with me. May I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) to an incident which happened on the Rhymney river last year. It is a good example of the unforeseen things which can happen. There was a fire at the Klockner-Pentapac factory which manufactures cosmetics. The fire authority came along promptly, doused the factory with water and eventually gained control of the fire. Of course, in the process the firemen swept out all the tanks which stored cosmetics. In no circumstances could anybody have foreseen that. The consequence was a direct wash straight into the River Rhymney of all the cosmetics. Almost the whole of the river from Aberbargoed to below Machen was devastated. The fish life was destroyed. Is not that precisely the sort of eventuality which could occur? At the

moment the sea acts as a natural method of disposal of pollutants. If there was a barrage there, they would be held in the lagoon. No one could foresee such an occurrence.

Dr. Howells: The point has been well made by my hon. Friend. I am sure that many other hon. Members could relate similar instances of large numbers of fish stock being killed as a result of chemicals escaping into rivers. That will always occur.

Mr. Flynn: We need to create something called a National Rivers Authority.

Dr. Howells: That is exactly the point that I am coming to. The problem is that there is a distinct lack of trust in the policing powers of an organisation which is run by precisely the same person as is involved so deeply in the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
I know many people who work in the National Rivers Authority and I have discussed these matters with them on many occasions. They are fine people with tremendous records. They are concerned about and have made great strides in cleaning our rivers. I hope that the new clauses show the concern of myself and other hon. Members. The problem is that Cardiff Bay development corporation sees itself quite properly as a pioneering enterprise which will transform an area which has long needed transformation. But that organic link with the hinterland shows up the limitations of the scope of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. If we cannot have an organisation that sees Cardiff's hinterland as being part and parcel of that environmental, ecological and economic entity, it seems that the Welsh Office should take on that role. There should be proper audits of what chemicals are held along the banks. Proper safeguards should be written into such a major project so that Euromet does not happen again; and if there is a fire in a cosmetics factory such as that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) described, there are proper containment structures and systems to ensure that, if the barrage is built, the pollution will not go into the lagoon. The link demands an overview and, in doing so, shows up the Bill's limitations.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Water Act 1989 contains substantial powers. The Secretary of State has many of the powers to which my hon. Friend refers, but the problem is that he will not use them. After all the incidents which occurred, and which we have discussed in tonight's brief debate, I pressed the Secretary of State to use the powers available to him under the Water Act. Unfortunately, he says every time that it is not appropriate to do so and that he does not wish to use the powers. The existence of the difficulties has been recognised. What is lacking is the political will to use the instruments that the House has put in place.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend has put the argument very well.
I shall turn to the problem which I mentioned earlier and which is central to the new clauses—eutrophication. It is not easy to say that word at this time of night, but I have managed to say it so far about eight times. New clause 6 deals with that issue, and states:
Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate stripping of the waters of the rivers


entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.".
The new clause has been drafted precisely in line with the EC directive which, in its criteria for the identification of sensitive and less sensitive areas, states:
Lakes and streams reaching lakes reservoirs closed bays which are found to have a poor water exchange, whereby accumulation may take place. In these areas the removal of phosphorous should be included unless it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication. Where discharges from large municipalities are made, the removal of nitrogen may also be considered.
There was agreement among my hon. Friends on the issue of the bacteriological pollution of rivers. The directive also mentions other areas of water which are found to have a poor water exchange or which receive large quantities of nutrients. It states:
The discharges from small municipalities are usually of minor importance in those areas, but for large municipalities"—
I have already said that we are probably dealing with perhaps half a million people, a large municipality by any standards—
the removal of phosphorous and nitrogen should be included unless it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication.

Mr. Michael: Paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 69(13) cover that issue. My hon. Friend raises important matters, but the Bill already deals with them. They state that when works are required upsteam of the inland bay, the undertakers are required to pay the costs of any works required to meet water quality standards over a period of 20 years. That provision could include phosphate-stripping if the water quality standards required it. The point is that the responsible authorities do not consider that that is necessary at present. The matter, which is serious, has been covered.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and I take his point. I have read the Bill carefully and I know that that is included, but it does not say how to ensure that eutrophication does not occur. I remember that at one time there was talk of a magic barge, which was going to go back and forth across the lagoon and do something to it which would stop algae from growing on and under the surface of the water. I pointed out at that time that I wondered how it could clear other forms of pollution, such as abandoned house doors and kitchen sinks, which daily go past my front window down the River Taff. That was the magic barge, but I have not heard a great deal about it since.
A clear recognition should have been included in the Bill by those who drafted it that the problem of nitrogen and phosphates occurs further upstream and that it is too late—and rather stupid—to deal with the problem once it has been impounded within a barrage. The obvious thing to do is to clean up the rivers first and then talk about how the problem might be dealt with. Even after rivers have been cleaned there will still be natural pollution, as anyone who has studied the problems in the third world knows. For example, in completely remote and uninhabited areas methane becomes a problem in impounded waters. I would be interested to know why the Bill does not contain any detailed accounts of how that problem will be solved.

Mr. Michael: If I may assist my hon. Friend, he referred again to algae growth. The management regime is there to control it. I referred to Bute East dock, and algae growth

as a result of nutrients in the water has not been a problem there, so we already have practical evidence. These matters have been discussed with the statutory authorities, which have powers to deal with the issue if necessary. My hon. Friend and I would obviously want to develop and strengthen powers over such environmental matters and I am sure that we would find ourselves in agreement on those matters in general legislation. They are covered, either in the Bill or in the powers of the statutory bodies.

Dr. Howells: If they are covered, I cannot find them. I have to disagree with my hon. Friend about that matter. He draws comparisons with the still water of a dock. That is a fair comparison, because the water comes from a feeder from the River Taff. However, he will have observed, I am sure—as I observe every day that I am in my constituency—that there is an enormous difference between a river which rises and falls by 15 ft or 20 ft according to the amount of rainfall, and a feeder that goes off it into a dock in a tame and controlled way.
In 1989 there were serious problems of algae in—

Mr. Morgan: Perhaps it would assist the House if I mentioned that lorry loads of algal scum had to be removed from Bute East dock and the feeder in the summer of 1989, which was a longish and hottish summer, after about 1 August. Until then the algal growth had been providing rather a good feed for the mullet in the dock and, up to a point, algal growth is beneficial to the environment, as it provides foodstuff for that type of fish. However, after it starts to bloom it becomes an absolute menace and deprives the whole area of oxygen. Lorry loads of the material had to be removed at the insistence of the house dwellers on the new Tarmac housing development at Bute East dock.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for that information.

Mr. Rogers: I am listening to this discussion, which is vital to the people who live in the area. Does my hon. Friend accept that the argument used by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is very like saying, "Let's have coal pits or pollution everywhere. Don't worry—we'll put in some money to clear it up afterwards"? One should do things logically and resolve the problem of pollution first instead of having to spend huge sums clearing up the environment afterwards. If the barrage created another inch of land for industrial development, there might be some value in it, but it does nothing except create a water vista.
The other point that I shall seek to cover later is the problem of the interface of fresh groundwater, coming from the rivers or the aquifer areas to the north of Cardiff, and the saline intrusion from the sea. The increased salinity of the area will be a substantial problem. In many parts of the country, increased salinity has been the subject of substantial surveys and monitoring by many bodies. I make this criticism of the technical people involved—not only were they late producing their reports, but many of those reports are not well done or even properly finished.

Dr. Howells: I shall listen with interest to my hon. Friend's account of the shortcomings of that part of the Bill, and I agree with the point of his earlier intervention.
I am sure that the Bill's supporters will agree—we cannot disagree on this—that the barrage development is a major project, probably the largest single project ever


undertaken in Wales. As I have already said, I welcome the development of the bay of which we are discussing one particular aspect tonight.

Mr. Flynn: All south Wales Members have an interest in cleaning up the rivers, some of which have been dead for a century. Is my hon. Friend aware that when I asked the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water about their programme to clean the rivers to EEC standards, I was informed that there is no programme. The only rivers with a chance of being cleaned in the foreseeable future are those for which barrages are planned.

Dr. Howells: If

Mr. Flynn: It is true.

Dr. Howells: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has made that important statement. If what he has said is the case, it is a disgrace. I represent a constituency that does not have an area to be barraged—unless we try to write off all the problems of some of our valleys by sticking dams across their mouths, which I understand was a proposition advanced in the 1930s. Like my hon. Friends, I shall seek some clarification to ensure that those of us whose constituencies may contain a river that does not stand a chance of being barraged at some stage can nevertheless expect it to be cleaned up.

Mr. Flynn: May I offer my hon. Friend some clarification? In the attempt to be brief, I perhaps misled him. My point is that the only schemes for cleaning up rivers are the barrage schemes. Apart from that, I have no hope of and see no programme for—although I am pressing for one for my constituency—cleaning up the rivers regardless of whether barrages are constructed. My hon. Friend seems to be blaming the promoters for the sins of omission of Welsh Water and the National Rivers Authority.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend again for his intervention. He completely misunderstood what I said, which was that one should not draw up such a Bill while the deplorable state of affairs means that the rivers flowing into the barrage will not be properly cleaned.
I have had no indication that early work will be undertaken on either the Taff or the Ely, or on their tributaries, to overcome the problem of raw sewage being pumped into those rivers. That information, therefore, comes as a surprise to me. If it is true, it is extraordinary that the only rivers that will be cleaned up are those which are to barraged because it means that we should all be pressing for barrages—in other words, for the sealing up of rivers which for millions of years have formed our environments and flowed into the seas with an exchange of water that is absolutely vital for our weather systems. We are being asked to agree to something that we find iniquitous simply because we might obtain a promise from the authorities that they might clean up their act on the disposal of sewage. It is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Rogers: I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) may be misleading the House inadvertently. I have substantially criticised Lord Crickhowell, who is wearing two hats in this matter. One

of them is that of chairman of the National Rivers Authority. In fairness to him, sums of money have been allocated, for example, to clean up the Rhondda rivers. That is nothing to do with the Cardiff barrage. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is preparing his arguments for the Usk barrage and laying the groundwork so that he can convince his constituents that they should support such a barrage proposal in order to have the River Usk cleaned up, but that is not a case for a barrage. The case needs to be far more substantial than that. The National Rivers Authority is providing some money for cleaning up rivers—it is certainly not enough, but it is being provided and it has nothing to do with the Cardiff bay barrage.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend. Perhaps I may return to the point that I was making about 10 minutes ago.

Mr. Flynn: I regret intervening so often on this, but as the subject has been raised, I should inform my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that there was a plan to clean up the Usk river by taking the sewage out of it. That was way back in the 1970s when Newport had its own water authority. The plan was ditched when the Newport water authority became part of Welsh Water. Subsequently, the charges for water increased by 2,500 per cent. within a decade and the scheme for cleaning up the river was never implemented. The campaign to implement the scheme has been going on for 20 years and it has nothing to do with the barrages.
We should like to clean up the rivers with or without the barrage, but in south Wales there is no programme or plan to clean up our rivers. Nevertheless, the issue is separate from the barrage. It is a coincidence that the rivers on which a barrage might well be built may be cleaned up. The point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is artificial. He is off target. He ought to complain and campaign for the National Rivers Authority to clean up the rivers. As a by-product of the two planned barrages, the rivers may be cleaned up. That is a different proposition. They will probably be cleaned up before other rivers which are more in need of it.

Dr. Howells: It is rare that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West but his case is an extraordinary inversion of a simple argument. One should not proceed with a major project such as this, which will suck in large amounts of public money, before first tackling the problem, which my hon. Friend has eloquently described, of the reluctance of what was a public body and a body which is central to cleaning up the rivers of Wales and everywhere else to get on with the job.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is not the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) rather like saying that the constituency of Pembroke has high unemployment which could be solved by putting a nuclear power station there? That would be to justify the nuclear power station by the high unemployment rather than to tackle the high unemployment head on. Is not that similar to the perverse argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West?

Dr. Howells: It is perverse.

Mr. Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Howells: I shall not give way for the moment. I should like to get on.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is filibustering.

Dr. Howells: Yes, he is doing a good job of filibustering. If may continue—

Mr. Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Howells: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. To respond to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), I have been chairman or vice-chairman of the Welsh anti-nuclear authority for the past 12 years. His suggestion is entirely absurd.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.

Dr. Howells: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for injecting that note of reality back into the proceedings.
About 15 minutes ago I spoke about the size of the development in financial and physical terms. It is a large development which is addressed by the EEC directive in terms of the kind of information it requested from member states about such developments.
The directive asks member states to provide information on the costs of the programme, giving capital investments and operating costs for the collection, treatment and disposal of municipal waste water. It asks for the identification in sensitive areas as well as less sensitive areas, including short explanations and notes. It asks for a short overview of the actual loads of municipal waste water discharged to fresh water, estuaries, coastal waters and land, and where insufficient data exists estimates should be made using available information.
It is extraordinary that the Bill for the biggest development in Wales, and one which is about impounding water of the type defined precisely in the EEC directive, gives no notion of the cost of cleaning up that water. Never mind about sending the figures to the EEC, they are not even sent as far as Pontypridd. At least. I have not received them and I would like to know why. Why are the costs not contained in the Bill? Why is there no information on the systems that will be used for cleaning up the nitrates, the phosphates, and so on? Is some kind of panacea for all this to be presented suddenly when the last breeze block is put in place on the face of the dam? Will it all fall into place?
To return to the question of nuclear facilities raised by two of my hon. Friends, I am reminded of the false optimism that led people to press on with developments in the belief that somehow the technology to deal with any problems that might arise would suddenly appear from nowhere. It is the result of a faith in the inevitability that science will somehow come up with the answers to whatever iniquity is perpetrated upon the planet.
Anyone who takes a sensible view of this will ask how such problems are to be addressed. I have not got far tonight in listing those problems. I have a couple more to list, including the one that I mentioned earlier about leachates. There are no firm proposals or costings, nor even an idea of a programme, for the works needed upstream on the Taff and Ely rivers to improve permanently the quality of the waters and the treatment of the sewage effluent which currently finds its way into both

those rivers. There was talk at one time about the magic barge which would solve everything. I do not know what has happened to it. Perhaps, metaphorically, it has sunk —and good riddance to it, as I have rarely heard a more absurd suggestion.
Nor have I heard any suggestion about what will happen about something that is central to the Cardiff bay development. I refer to the fate of the Ferry road tip, a large landfill site which has long been a source of worry for many people, not only because of the leachates which may at the moment be finding their way into the mud flats which, if the Bill is enacted, will become the bottom of the lagoon. I have already listed some of the problems with leachates and some of the materials which may find their way into our water tables and bodies of water as a result of leachates. However, I understand that the future of the Ferry road tip is still far from clear. The Touche Ross consultancy report, commissioned by Cardiff city council last October in compliance with the Welsh Office request, recommends:
The future of the Ferry Road site be established as quickly as possible in discussion with Welsh Office and that Committee's previous decision regarding continued tipping be reaffirmed.
There have been discussions in Cardiff city council about constructing some other form of waste disposal in conjunction with the Cardiff bay development corporation that will take some of the waste already in the landfill site. There has been talk about an anaerobic digestion plant. The very title is revolting, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that it is late, so I shall not upset your sleep by outlining what happens in anaerobic digestion.
11.15 pm
All the relevant technology is still being pioneered, but there is much talk about how to get bacteria to eat the contents of the Ferry road tip. An anaerobic plant somewhere on the foreshore in Cardiff has been suggested, but little has been said about the possible costs. I note, however, that the Touche Ross report has said that the cost would be about £4·5 million. Who will pay? Will it be the city council or the Cardiff bay development corporation, or will the cost be met by a joint venture? Where will the plant be cited? The people of Grangetown and Butetown should be told.
What will happen to the present tip? Will it be moved? My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is aware that a waste site at Pyle has been mentioned and he is right to be concerned about that.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Stormy Down site has been mentioned, but when that proposal was discussed at the Ogwr borough council some councillors said that they would lie down on the road to prevent any lorry from getting anywhere near the site with waste from the Ferry road tip in Cardiff. There is total opposition to the disposal of that waste in the Ogwr borough.

Dr. Howells: I can understand that opposition. At the best of times landfill sites are not welcome. If one authority attempts to shift a landfill site into another constituency for cosmetic reasons, that is asking for trouble. My hon. Friend's intervention is another example of the difficulties caused by the way in which the Bill has been drawn up. No solutions have been proposed for the central problems. I am not opposed to development, but I am opposed to any development that does not take into account likely problems.

Mr. Rogers: The short-sightedness of the corporation and the local authority was revealed when they held an exhibition in London when the Bill was first presented. At that time they had not even consulted adjacent local authorities. When they were criticised for that by people such as myself, consultation commenced.
My hon. Friend's background is the mining industry and he lives in the valleys. He will remember the traumatic experience to which the valleys of south Wales were subject to aid the developments in Newport at the Llanwern steel site. Our villages were hell holes because of the huge lorries that went through, but we suffered all that because we knew that our tips were being removed. We knew that the blots on the landscape were finally going. We suffered for a good cause—the new steel works at Llanwern.
We shall not have a similar experience with the removal of the Ferry road tip. When the huge lorries start travelling through the Vale of Glamorgan villages to reach Bridgend to dump the waste, there will be civil insurrection in south Wales. It just goes to show that the Bill has been badly conceived.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend draws a good analogy. There is an enormous difference between the case of Llanwern, in which a village was blighted for many years to lay the foundations for an excellent new steelworks, and the fate envisaged for the Ferry road tip in Cardiff.
The Touche Ross report requested by Cardiff city council and drawn up on the recommendation of the Welsh Office says:
The intentions of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation have affected the waste management planning in Cardiff adversely. Accepting the political reality, the intentions of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation with respect to Ferry Road should be finalised. They feel however that CBDC has grossly underestimated the logistic, environmental, health and safety problems associated with exhuming 2 million cubic metres of waste.
The Consultants have in fact, following informal discussions with the Welsh Office, intimated that the removal of the tip may not now proceed in full.
I can well imagine that not many authorities would relish the prospect of moving 2 million cubic metres of waste —not to mention the feelings of those in the communities through which the waste will be driven. But if the waste is not moved, what will happen to it? If it stays where it is, who will pay for the defences that will have to be constructed to contain the leachate and prevent it from going into the lagoon following the building of a barrage across the river?

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is citing a substantial criticism of the development corporation by the local authority. During the passage of the Bill, a certain image has been projected—that everything is working perfectly and that the local authority wants the development to take place. Is my hon. Friend now saying that the local authority is criticising the corporation?

Dr. Howells: I am merely saying that page 7 of the Touche Ross report drawn up for Cardiff city council says:
The intentions of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation have affected the waste management planning in Cardiff adversely.
That is clear enough and that assertion is certainly a blot on the venture's otherwise perfect public copybook.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Are we not in a terrible fix with regard to the Ferry road tip? We dare not leave it there because there is no way of sealing it and there will be

leachate problems in the lagoon. On the other hand, we cannot move it because no other local authority will be willing to receive it.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Both bodies are clear about it. That is why a special report was drawn up by Touche Ross and it is presumably why the report has received no publicity until now. The problem is central to the future of the project but it is one about which we do not hear. The promoters have managed the news well. We hear only the good news and never the bad news —even if we often disagree about what constitutes good news and what constitutes bad.

Dr. Marek: Will my hon. Friend consider asking the Minister his views on this important matter? No doubt the Welsh Office, having received the Bill some time ago, will have considered the matter, and Ministers may be able to set our minds at rest on it. The House would be interested if the Minister would intervene, however briefly, to clear up the matter.

Dr. Howells: I shall certainly invite the Minister to intervene, although knowing his reputation—about which I have written elsewhere—for riding out such storms I shall not be surprised if he does not. My hon. Friend has asked an important question; his remarks were certainly not flippant. We should like to know the thinking of the Welsh Office on that and on £500 million or £100 million of public money—the sum seems to vary from week to week.
The consultants also make the following recommenda-tions:
The status of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation's intentions with respect to Ferry Road should be determined in the near future. Accepting the political realities, if Ferry Road is acquired by CBDC, it should be ensured that adequate compensation for replacement of an equivalent amount of operational waste management capacity is provided.
In other words, the corporation must find another tip.
Anyone who has been following recent events in Taff-Ely will know that the proposal for a landfill site at Penrhos is no easy matter. It is also an enormously expensive matter. It is no longer possible simply to find a hole in the ground and chuck stuff into it, as has been done so often in the past, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that the problem even exists.
What are the chances that Cardiff city council will be able to operate a local authority waste-disposal company capable of dealing with the Ferry road tip leachate problem? I do not think that they are very good. I fear that environmental and ecological problems will be forced on us when the tip is removed. For, if it is not removed, I cannot see how the lagoon can possibly go ahead, unless huge modifications are made. Civil engineering works will be needed to ensure that the material in the existing site is contained, and considerable expenditure will be required if an alternative site is to be found. It will no longer be possible to use the Ferry road tip; it is no use damming a river to provide a beautiful stretch of water around which to construct wonderful flats and a marina if behind the flats seagulls are picking over botulism organisms on a rubbish tip.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Did not the development corporation more or less admit the existence of a massive problem by considering the removal of the tip so seriously? If it were possible to seal it to prevent the leachate


problem, the corporation would not have thought of spending millions of pounds to remove it. The barrage can go ahead only if the tip is removed.

Dr. Howells: Indeed. That is the point that I have been trying to make.
I shall end my speech here—I know that everyone will be massively relieved—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no.'']

Mr. Flynn: We have listened fascinated to my hon. Friend's account of all the pollutants that can enter the Taff, but it is difficult for us to judge the worth of his speech. When will he come to the point and tell us the amount of leachate, the amount of eutrophication and the number of organophosphates? Organophosphates, which are minute, have not been mentioned yet.
We know that there is pollution, but if we are to make a judgment we must know whether there is a minute or a massive amount. I have yet to hear any attempt to quantify it in what has, in terms of its length, been a very thorough speech.

Dr. Howells: I have hardly heard a more absurd point in my life. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do—he mentioned it earlier in connection with his constituency —why it is impossible to quantify the pollution. He has made a very cheap point.
As my hon. Friend knows, the funds simply are not available. This applies to my constituency as well as to his. I hope that he will tell his constituents when they find themselves living next to old landfill sites that we have no idea how much leachate is coming out of them, or how much methane is being generated. My hon. Friend is very unwise to make such criticism. If he is a scientist, as he says he is, he will know that any landfill site produces methane and leachate. The work has not been carried out because the money has not been made available. I am extremely surprised at my hon. Friend.

Dr. Marek: I rather feared that I might not get into this debate either. The amount of leaching is central to the clause. If the Welsh Office and the Minister say nothing, I hope that the Bill's sponser, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has, of course, looked at the matter in detail, will be able to help us. Perhaps he will tell us how much leaching there will be, whether it will be dangerous and what damage it will cause. How much will have to be spent to clean up, and what will be the recurrent costs? So far no one has been able to give precise answers to those questions.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes his point well.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) made an absurd point. Surely it is the responsibility of the promoters to say that there will be no pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport. West should pay attention to the answer to his question. It is the responsibility of the undertakers to provide the information that he seeks. In fairness to the undertakers, I should say that they have carried out surveys in relation to coliform bacteria concentrations, potential demand, leaching and sewer outfalls. They are trying to identify the problem, but they have not come to any firm conclusion. Because of the problems and figures in some areas, the

undertakers have had to draw up theoretical projections. It is fairly significant that all their suggestions seem to be on the safe side.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend answers the point very well. The Touche Ross report concludes that the Welsh Office must call an urgent meeting to establish the intentions of the Cardiff Bay development corporation about the future use of the Ferry road landfill site. That is crucial to enable Cardiff city council to decide whether a waste authority will be viable. What has the Minister to say about the matter? Will the Welsh Office demand a meeting with Cardiff city council and Cardiff Bay development corporation to hear exactly what will happen to the Ferry road tip?
Many hon. Members have spoken about the Ferry road tip. I have spoken at some length, and I began by saying that it is not the only tip that leaches into the rivers that eventually become the Taff and the Ely. There are many such tips. A survey in the past year shows that limited fines apply to the many tips that we already know about. The Bill's promoters should take that on board and should tell us exactly what they intend to do about it. Will the Cardiff Bay development corporation contribute to the cost of putting right those tips? Will it be subject to a levy to make sure that spillages, such as that which occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, do not reach the rivers? That is a perfectly fair burden to place on the corporation because the scheme is about property development and property prices; it is not concerned with the environment. The Bill does not answer these questions, and it is a crying shame and to the detriment of south Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am sure that the entire House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on his speech. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He has presented a first-class analysis of the problems that will be created and illustrated vividly the difficulties faced by those who represent valley communities. My hon. Friend is a well-respected member of the Select Committee on the Environment, and I am sure that we shall all give full recognition to that fact when we come to weigh his contribution to the debate.
It is worth noting that the amendments are constructive. I hope that that will become clear as the debate unfolds. I hope, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will recognise that the amendments will not defeat the Bill or reduce its effectiveness. All the amendments will strengthen the Bill and make it more acceptable to those who will be directly affected by it.

Dr. Marek: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall, but first I wish briefly to make two points. Having done that, I shall be more than happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
Two features have characterised the debate. First—this is the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd concluded—we have not received any answers from the promoters. I accept, of course, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) asked how leaching can be quantified and how the degree of pollution can be assessed, and what can be done to remedy it. He must understand that it is not the responsibility of my hon. Friends and I to produce a scientific analysis. As


my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) rightly said, that is the direct responsibility of the promoters. They must satisfy the House, and they have failed to do so in that respect.
The second feature that has characterised the debate has been the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), for a great part of it. The hon. Gentleman has strolled back into the Chamber, I accept, but the Minister of State has been present throughout and has listened attentively. Many of the questions that have been raised can be answered only by the Under-Secretary. The solution of the problem of water pollution in the valleys—that is directly relevant to the new clause because it is the cause of the problem in the bay—rests directly with the Minister. There are powers available to him under the Water Act 1989, if he wants to use them, to take action to lay the necessary orders to prevent the recurrence of the pollution that has emanated from industrial concerns, for example, thus far.
The Minister has every reason to be present in the Chamber. He has even more reason to outline the position of the Welsh Office. It is not good enough for Ministers to sit on the Government Front Bench and do nothing while covertly using the machinery of government to ensure that when the Bill is debated Members come out from under stones or crawl out from the woodwork obediently to vote at the whim of the Government, without hearing one minute of our debates. If the Government are to take the responsibility of bringing Members into their Lobby, they have a responsibility to the House to set out their views on these important issues.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend has made the point extremely well. I was seeking to make the same point in my own way. As my hon. Friend said, the purpose of the amendments is not in any way destructive. Indeed, I believe that their acceptance would prove to be helpful to the Bill. When my hon. Friend said that they would not be destructive, the Under-Secretary of State guffawed in disbelief. He seems to be expressing disbelief even now.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Absolutely.

Dr. Marek: If he is doing that, he owes it to the House, if he is a man of integrity, to explain why he thinks that the amendments are destructive or otiose. If they are unnecessary in any way and he explains why that is so, I shall not seek to delay the House one moment longer in its consideration of the new clause. The Minister will help the House if he intervenes, after my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has completed his speech, to explain the Government's view.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for that helpful and constructive intervention.
It is particularly worth placing on the record the wording of new clause 6 about phosphate and nitrate stripping. It states:
'Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers

entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.'.
No one could accuse new clause 6 of being a wrecking amendment. It is simply a deliberate attempt to safeguard water quality in the part of south Wales about which we are all so concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd recounted some telling and graphic examples of the problems facing the valleys in south Wales and the rivers that drain into the bay. Reference has already been made to the major occurences of pollution and there are some spectacular incidents. However, there is also regular, insidious pollution which drips and washes into the rivers on a daily basis. That is inevitable if we consider the geography, economy and social structure of the valley communities.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The news that British troops have been sent into northern Iraq is a matter of such importance that a statement should be made to the House. As it appears that we will be continuing our deliberations into the early hours, can it be arranged for the House to consider that important development?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Obviously those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). At the moment, no request for a statement has been made to Mr. Speaker's office.

Mr. Davies: Because of the geography of our valley communities there is a conjunction of relatively densely populated settlements with a mix of fairly new industry while at the same time we have the legacy of the 19th century with abandoned mine and coal workings. That mix in an area of high rainfall and steep valley sides will inevitably result in a high level of pollution in our rivers. In addition, we face the problem of the inadequacy of our storm and farm sewers.
Several hon. Members who have spoken tonight have direct experience of living beside rivers. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd made it clear that from where he lives he can see what is coming down the river. I have a similar experience. I live beside the River Rhymney and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West shares my concern about this. I do not want to embarrass you, Madam Deputy Speaker, by describing some of the stuff that comes down the river. However, not all of it is natural material; some of it is man made. Inevitably at times of high rainfall, the river rises and leaves its flood debris in trees on the river bank. When the river subsides., we can see the souvenirs of the night's heavy rain scattered along the river.
If and when the barrage is built, that which is carried down the river at times of high rainfall will be deposited in the bay. That will cause major problems. Our rivers are grossly polluted. They obviously contain high levels of nitrates and phosphates and a great deal of organic material from sewers or in the form of sheep that fall into the rivers, dogs that are killed and thrown in or horses that are washed down river. Those are by no means rare occurrences in our valley communities. All that matter will end up in the bay—[Interruption.] It is not unusual to see a horse's leg or head going down the river. Horses fall in or die and are thrown in. Unfortunately, such things


happen regularly. That, together with the microbiological contamination, will reach the lagoon and create a major problem.
In fairness to the promoters, I should point out that they have gone on record as saying that the water quality in the lagoon will be sub-standard. They maintain, however, that the problem can be dealt with. I have read carefully all the documents and the report of the Committee proceedings. I have also listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Moreover, I have read the reports that have been prepared by and on behalf of the promoters. I am not convinced that they have found a solution to the problem. They say that there will have to be regular patrols round the lagoon to pick up waste matter—the dead dogs and horses, and all the other rubbish.
11.45 pm
I do not mean to be unkind to the city of Cardiff, but I have to say that it is one of the dirtiest cities that I have ever visited. The streets of Cardiff are unclean. However, the suggestion is that after the lagoon is constructed an efficient cleaning system will miraculously appear that will pick up all the detritus. Rather than Cardiff city employees doing the scavenging, it is far more likely that rats and gulls will do it. [Interruption.] I am more than happy to give way to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) if he wishes to speak. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman has had a pleasant night out. I do not blame him for that; he is probably very well fed and he has probably had a drink or two. Now he seems to want to take part in the debate. Perhaps he has been sufficiently beguiled by the Government to come along and vote, even though he has not heard the debate. That is up to him. If, however, he wants to participate in it, he should not be provocative. Let me now put on record that the hon. Gentleman is leaving the Chamber with a gracious gesture, which will doubtless be recorded for posterity.
I hope to speak later about birds. My hon. Friends know that I am anxious to secure both a good environment for them and their protection. However, I do not want the gulls to proliferate. They will not be an amenity; they will drive away birds that are attracted to the lagoon and they will not improve living conditions in the vicinity.
The most telling condemnation of the proposal is that the promoters say that no contact sports will be allowed in the bay. We are told that the lagoon will be a powerful incentive to economic development and that it will make a magnificent contribution to Cardiff's environment. No contact with it, however, will be allowed. People will be unable to swim or fish in it, or to windsurf on it. The fear is that if they come into contact with the water it will become so grossly polluted that their health will be endangered.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the amenities of the lake and of the two fingers that point north out of it. I am not sure that he is right about the fishing. Fishermen tend to undo knots with their teeth, which would be dangerous, but fishing is not a dangerous practice. It is not a contact sport, unless one falls into the water.
There are differences of opinion between the city of Cardiff environmental health officer, who advises against the practice of dragon boat racing, and the county and, I

think, Tarmac plc, which owns the Bute East dock. Dragon boat racing is a form of Maori giant canoe racing, the vessels being not large enough to overturn. Unlike swimming, this is not a true contact sport, but it does involve splashing. Vigorous effort and passing can result in water coming into contact with lips. People making maximum physical effort tend to lick their lips, and even that is sufficient to result in a warning from the Cardiff city environmental health officer that people taking part in such sport in this location do so at serious health risk.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's useful and interesting intervention.
The implications for fishing are unclear. I have in fron tof me a copy of a Sunday Times report on the algae pollution incident at Rutland Water last year. Although I want to return to that matter, I shall allow myself to be distracted for a moment from the main thrust of my argument in order to refer to this report, which deals with the studies that were carried out after the incident. Apparently, a sales engineer from Great Glen, Leicestershire, spent two weeks in bed because of symptoms that included nausea, headaches and aching and swollen limbs. Those symptoms developed after the man had come into contact with algae while fishing at the reservoir in August. I have no doubt that, if my worst fears are realised, problems will arise because of the practice of biting on shot—of course, fishermen cannot now use lead shot—and contamination in the course of eating, drinking and touching the face.
If the amendments are not accepted, we shall be faced with four particularly unacceptable phenomena in the bay. First, the lake itself will be unsightly, and, because of the high level of microbiological contamination and decom-posing organic material, unpleasant odours will come from it. Secondly, the decomposing organic matter and the high incidence of rats and gulls will constitute a direct health hazard. Rats, of course, carry leptospirosis, and gulls are invariably heavily contaminated with salmonella. Several hon. Members are laughing. Let them understand that this is a major problem. Thirdly, there will be the problem of midges. No doubt this, too, will be a subject of great amusement to some hon. Members, but the promoters of the Bill recognise that it will be a major difficulty.
Let me put on the record a report in the South Wales Echo, which is a regular and enthusiastic advocate of this Bill. It carries this story:
Swarms of midges could be a problem if the Cardiff Bay barrage goes ahead and a huge lake is formed, members of the House of Lords were told. For the first few years of the lake's existence the midges could coat washing on clothes lines and windows in the area near the lake, a scientist told a Select Committee. Some people could also develop allergies to the midges, even if they were dead, said Mr. Morlais Owen, the chief scientist of Welsh Water. He was giving evidence of water quality and other factors relating to the rivers Taff and Ely, which will be held back by the barrage. Mr. Owen said that the condition of the Taff had improved considerably during recent years, and Welsh Water were insisting on stringent conditions to safeguard the fish which had returned to the river.
He supported the barrage and advocated the highest standards, but he recognised that there will be a considerable problem. There will be not a health hazard but an annoyance.
We are being asked to authorise expenditure of more than £100 million to create the lake because it will be attractive to property developers. However, we are told


that for three months of the year people will not be able to go near it because of midges. It will not be a great attraction to anybody.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Global warming could become a worse problem. Malarial mosquitos were found on the Isle of Sheppey for quite a long time after servicemen had disembarked there at the end of the second world war. It is conceivable that, with global warming and international air travel, this large lagoon could attract the malarial mosquito to south Wales—perhaps not in this decade but in decades to come.

Mr. Davies: That is an appropriate intervention, but I do not want to be led too far into the future. My hon. Friend suggests that an atmospheric change in the bay could affect its insect life.
I was going to mention global warming in connection with blue-green algae. The rate of growth of algae, causing the problem of toxic poisoning, is directly controlled by, among other things, air temperature. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is right: if temperatures change by even a half a degree or a degree, we shall have no way of quantifying its impact on the growth of blue-green algae.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend referred to the evidence given by Mr. Morlais Owen, which was not expected to be hostile. In cross-examination, it was put to him:
With two rivers discharging into the lake with pollutants in them—probably low oxygen levels—probably full of phosphates, algae, extensive rubbish tips nearby, storm water flows as sewage heavy metal pollution, midges and problems with micro-biological quality … 'are you familiar with a case like that anywhere?' Answer, No. Obviously I would have to say I know of no other lake which has been created in such circumstances.

Mr. Davies: That graphically shows what a leap in the dark we are being asked to take.

Mr. Morgan: A pig in a poke.

Mr. Davies: No, the pig comes down the river with the horses.
I was tempted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to refer to the dangers to fishermen. I referred to the problem that occurred in 1989. I refer briefly to an article in The Sunday Times which is relevant. It mentions a report by Anglia Water, which revealed that
water had been piped to customers in parts of Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire containing a substance suspected of being microsistine",
which is a toxin. That toxin results from the decomposition of blue-green algae. Such water will be used in the lake, around which people will walk with their children or dogs or in which they will fish.
Anglia Water's conclusion that there was nevertheless no threat to health was challenged this weekend by the scientists on whose research the report was based.
Professor Ian Falconer of the university of New England in Australia found that the doses of the toxin in highly concentrated forms promoted the growth of tumours in mice. He said, 'The general flavour of the Anglia report is playing the incident down.' Dozens of people complained of nausea, stomach ache, diarrhoea and skin rashes after the blue-green algae infested reservoirs at Grafham in Cambrigeshire and Rutland Water in Leicestershire in October and November.

Those are precisely the blue-green algae which it is recognised by everybody, including the promoters, will contaminate the waters of the bay.
12 midnight
The article continued:
Similarly dangerous levels of the algae have been found already this year in at least nine lakes and reservoirs in the midlands and southern England. The toxin in blue-green algae can sometimes cause liver damage in humans and kill birds, animals and fish. The National Rivers Authority, Britain's water pollution watchdog, yesterday warned that the algae posed a risk to anglers, water sports enthusiasts and other people using affected water for recreation.
That was the official warning given by the National Rivers Authority to the public about the dangers of being adjacent to or coming into contact with water contaminated by blue-green algae—precisely the con-ditions which, on the promoters' own admission, will apply in the Cardiff bay lagoon. It makes one wonder what the logic is behind the proposal.
The article continued:
Dozens of other stretches of water have also been found to contain smaller amounts of the algae which is fed by sewage, farm pollution and natural chemicals reacting with sunlight. Anglia argued that its report's conclusions were based on the advice of Government scientists and John Howell, a toxicologist at the water research centre, an independent company funded by the industry. He had decided that there was no risk to human health because research by Falconer had shown no effect on mice given 1,000 times the doses that might have ended up in drinking water. In fact, Falconer found that doses that concentrated had killed many of the experimental animals and the lowest dose he has ever used, still 200 times higher than in the drinking water, caused an increase in general illness in the mice.
That was the incident which led to all the problems of illness and to the deaths of domestic and farm animals when they came into contact with water. They did not necessarily drink large amounts of water, but only came into contact with it. It was the incident which led to the angler to whom I referred earlier being struck down with various ailments.
It is not as though the NRA is not aware of the problem. I refer briefly to another report, again in the South Wales Echo, last November:
Action to fight the growth of poisonous algae which infected eight lakes in South Wales this year has been announced by river watchdogs.
The final sentence was:
In their first report on blue-green algal blooms which are thought to have killed 20 sheep, 15 dogs and put two soldiers in hospital in Wales in 1989 the National Rivers Authority makes a series of recommendations.
None of the recommendations is capable of being implemented in the circumstances of Cardiff bay. Even if they could be implemented, they would be an enormous continuing burden on the ratepayers of Cardiff and South Glamorgan. Provision is made by the promoters for the interim period, but what will happen then? Who will pick up the tab of ensuring that the lake in the middle of Cardiff, which will be useless, will be monitored, treated and controlled in such a way as not to make it fit for people to drink or fish in but merely to walk alongside and exercise their pets? It is a frightening prospect.
An interesting specialist report from the National Rivers Authority, dealing with toxic blue-green algae, was published last September. It contains issues that are relevant to the new clauses.

Mr. Rowlands: In the evidence given about the need to monitor, the same witness, Mr. Owen, was asked:


the lake will have to rely, will it not, on extensive control measures for many years if not in perpetuity, to ensure that there is adequate quality of water and the environment".
He answered:
that is correct, yes".

Mr. Davies: The more we consider the issue of water quality, the more we realise how wrong the Cardiff Bay development corporation has been in its assessment.
It is worth reflecting for a moment on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who is not here at present, raised. We are not talking about the construction of a barrage that will generate power, assist communica-tion across the bay, create a water reservoir or a body of water that will he of general use to the population for recreation, sporting or relaxed leisure purposes. We are told that the barrage is necessary to pond back the waters to enhance Cardiff's environment so that it will be attractive to property developers who will build high-tech industry or yuppie housing.
The promoters have made a monumental mistake. If they think that a reservoir—to disguise it for a moment —which will not he drinkable, and in which one will not be able to play or fish because it will be riddled with pollution, fly ridden, attractive to vermin, will give off odours, be covered in the summer by blue-green algae and contain deadly toxins, will attract people to invest in high-tech industries or build yuppie houses, it makes me wonder what sort of people they think will come. The industrialists whom I try to talk into coming to my constituency would not be attracted by that prospect.
I shall return to the report of the National Rivers Authority on toxic blue-green algae, published in September 1990. I want to develop that subject because, if the other matters are inconvenient, blue-green algae and the toxins that they produce are matters of life and death, and positive hazards to human health.
The report's introduction contains a brief summary, which is worth putting on record because I know that my hon. Friends will appreciate the definitions that it contains. It starts:
Blue-green algae are organisms with some properties characteristic of both bacteria and algae. They are capable of photosynthesis and the pigment required for this process often gives them a blue-green colour. Many species of blue-green algae have the ability to fix gaseous nitrogen and, under suitable physical and chemical conditions"—
the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) when he referred to global warming—
particularly in still waters"—
which is precisely what we shall have in the barrage—
populations may grow to extremely high densities and, under certain circumstances, a scum if algae will form on the surface which can accumulate. These algae are also known to produce chemicals which can be toxic to mammals, including man.
This will be the attractive lake that will be created by the expenditure of £150 million of public money.
The report continues by referring to the problems of Rutland Water, and I do not want to develop that theme because I have already mentioned it. However, I shall briefly consider the factors that affect the incidence of blooms. You will be fascinated to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the blooms occur in the late summer when the temperature conditions are such that the algae break down, giving rise to the toxins. They grow
 relatively slowly; but a long period of stable weather, giving a constant physical (hydraulic) environment, is therefore required for large populations to develop. Within this

constraint, the temperature and the nutrients available will determine the population size which may be achieved if good growth conditions persist. In most places in southern and eastern England"—
this report was referring to England but for our purposes it applies equally to Wales as the conditions are exactly the same there—
nutrient availability is more than adequate and grazing by zooplankton is usually minimal, thus blue-green algae normally become dominant in the algal community in mid to late summer.
Those are precisely the conditions that would be created within the barrage as a result of the drainage factors that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said that those problems had already been experienced.

Mr. Morgan: I have not spoken about that yet.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said in an earlier intervention that those were precisely the problems that had given rise to numerous complaints by residents of Cardiff in the big dock development.
You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall now skip a few pages of this report to come to the matters that are directly relevant to new clause 5. It says:
About 25 species of blue-green algae have been implicated in poisoning incidents. Confirmation that algae can produce toxins is a difficult and lengthy process … The potential toxicity of a bloom or scum cannot be determined by its appearance odour, texture or any other simple feature.
We are creating a time bomb, the toxicity of which cannot be determined by anyone without recourse to detailed physical or scientific examination. Blooms capable of producing toxins have been reported from all over the world, including many European countries, and up to 75 per cent. of all such algae tested have been found to produce toxins.
The important and damning point is that:
The toxicity of a single bloom, however, may fluctuate rapidly both in time and in space.
The conclusion that can be drawn from that is that, whatever the algae—we will not know which species it is —it may well be producing highly toxic material. No one will be able to tell because there will be no physical manifestation of the quality of the algae. It will not smell or look a particular colour and it may vary in terms of time and space.
We are told that this development will be attractive to all the yuppies who are going to move into Cardiff bay —pull the other one.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a very good case, but I wonder if there is perhaps a large sluice gate in the barrage which could be opened at low tide to let out everything into the Severn. That would get rid of the algae, the dead horses and all the sewage.

Mr. Davies: That is a serious matter and my hon. Friend does the development corporation a disservice in mocking it because it recognises the problem and has studied ways to combat it. I know of two ways that it has considered, and I understand that one is still on the cards. The first was to allow an ingress of salt water. The belief was that, when the salt water mixed with the fresh water, the biological conditions would change, and that would kill the blooms.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The salt does one's throat good when one gargles.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
However, the flaw in that solution is that the salt water is heavier than the fresh water in the lagoon—

Mr. Griffiths: Algae do not gargle.

Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend says, algae do not gargle. Furthermore, as the necessary mixing of the waters would not occur, that idea was put to one side.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is desperately anxious to find a solution to the problem and may confirm that the current solution to the problem of algae growth is thought to be something like a giant jacuzzi, in the belief that if the oxygen content of the waters in the bay can be altered, that will create conditions in which the algae cannot survive. The current idea seems to be to have a giant oxygenating plant which would have to be turned on at regular intervals, and which could reinvigorate the whole lagoon. You can therefore understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why people will not be allowed to swim in it.

Mr. Morgan: Perhaps it would help the House to know that page 36 of the Bill refers to the necessity of removing algal scum. It is not my hon. Friends and I who have introduced this algae fixation; it is the promoters, who have signed an agreement with the National Rivers Authority involving a wide variety of procedures, including the oxygenating equipment that my hon. Friend has mentioned and a giant algae hoover plant which will suck blooms of algae out of—

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thought that the hoover plant was in Merthyr.

Mr. Morgan: Well, it may involve an order for converting a hoover—I do not know. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has absented himself from the Chamber for that reason.
However, there is no mention of what will be done with the algae once it has been sucked out of the lake. It would fall under the definition of "sewage sludge" and there is nothing in the reference on page 36 to the removal of algal scum to tell us what will be done with that algal scum. Following the municipal waste water directive that has been mentioned, that scum cannot be dumped at sea or piped out to sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that we want more clarification on this point?

Mr. Davies: Yes; and, more importantly, so does the National Rivers Authority.
You will be delighted to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that brings me almost to my concluding point—

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Davies: I shall happily give way to my hon. Friend as I know that he does not want to end the debate too soon, but perhaps I can finish my sentence first.
The NRA recognises that there is a problem and has suggested ways in which blue-green algae can be controlled in the longer term. Before I develop that argument, which is directly relevant to the new clause, I happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth on the assurance that he will not seek to move the closure if I sit down.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend can be satisfied that I am merely rising to try to help him. The point that I made earlier applies equally to his current argument about these serious and important matters. The maintenance of water quality standards at the disposal site is dealt with by the NRA which, under its statutory procedures, must satisfy itself that these matters are dealt with satisfactorily. Those requirements are included in the Bill, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said. Interesting though these technical matters are, the Bill is satisfactory as it stands at the moment.

Mr. Davies: . I understand that that is the promoters' response, but if we pass the Bill, we are allowing through legislation which has enormous environmental consequences that are worthy of more detailed debate, and which will allow expenditure of £150 million or £200 million of public money—or more—in pursuance of the idea that Cardiff can be regenerated by the lake. That is what this is about. We are now told that the main flaw in the technical arguments and the main problem of pollution will be dealt with at some unspecified time in the future and by some unspecified means.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: We must take it on trust.

Mr. Davies: Exactly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) says, we are expected to take it on trust. I am not prepared to take it on trust. I might be satisfied on this point if the National Rivers Authority said that it would implement A, B and C, how much it would cost and that that would bring about a solution to the problem. If that was on offer, I would be prepared to withdraw the new clause, as I am sure all my hon. Friends would be. But that is not on offer, so I am not prepared to accept the proposal.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Pike: rose—

Mr. Davies: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I know that you will be impressed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I know that it is my hon. Friend from Burnley when I am not even looking at him. However, I know that he is there. I can sense his presence. I know that he has a valuable contribution to make to the debate and I shall happily give way to him. As I am sure that he recognises, this is essentially a matter involving us in Wales, so I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend may be asking for the impossible when he says that he wants firm undertakings from the National Rivers Authority. The NRA may think of itself as god-like, but it is not a god. It cannot control the enormous problems that exist in estuarial areas. There is a mixing of water in such areas as a result of the interchange of sea water and fresh water, which vary substantially in their organic and inorganic content and relative salinity. There is almost a natural jacuzzi effect which gives rise to an enormous concentration of organic life at river mouths. That would be denied by the construction of a barrage. As a result of the accumulation of materials when it passes over and through the ground eventually to reach an estuary, fresh water probably has 10 times more organic material in it than sea water. That shows the continually compounding and evolving


problems that would occur behind an enclosed area. The hon. Members for Newport, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth may snigger at that, but, as my hon. Friends have said, the barrage could be a time bomb for the people living in the area.

Mr. Davies: That is a telling point. However, I want to refer directly to new clauses 6 and 8 so I shall not be led down the path that my hon. Friend signals.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that I was on the Environment Select Committee until six months ago and that I have always been a strong supporter of the National Rivers Authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred to the powers that the NRA had to deal with the specific points that have been made. I wonder whether he is aware that on more than one occasion the NRA has said that it does not have all the powers that it should have to carry out its functions and sometimes has to use persuasion. On other matters, it does not necessarily have all the resources that it needs to carry out the duties laid upon it by the Water Act 1989.

Mr. Davies: I have to confess that I did not know that. To use a term which I understand is now acceptable in the better political circles in this country, I am absolutely gobsmacked to hear that. No doubt that point will be developed.

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I am desperately trying to bring my speech to a conclusion, but I know that my hon. Friend wants to develop this point. As he is in charge of the Bill, of course I have to give way to him.

Mr. Michael: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was not present when I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd to say that there were matters on which we agreed that we should seek improvements in general legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd put his finger on one such matter, but it is not one for the Bill.

Mr. Davies: Clearly, we are all united on that matter. I look forward to the day, in the not-too-distant future, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, together with myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd and for Burnley, will be members of a Standing Committee pushing through legislation introduced by a Labour Government. In the meantime, let me return to the NRA report of last year.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that there are methods of dealing with blue-green algae in the longer term. The report says:
Blue-green algae in reservoirs and lakes may be controlled by direct and mostly non-selective algicidal techniques or by the artificial enhancement of natural selection through physical, chemical and biological methods. However, the use of algicidal techniques is not considered advisable because toxins may be released into the water during cell breakdown. Enhanced natural controls may be effective, but only under certain conditions.
"Enhanced natural controls" means some form of bio-engineering, which opens up the prospect of the Cardiff Bay development corporation setting up a system for genetically manipulating the blue-green algae, injecting them artifically into the lake and, by a process of natural

selection, bringing about a clearance of the blue-green algae. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West is looking a little bemused at that suggestion. When the Cardiff Bay development corporation suggests that the manipulation of the genetic structure of the blue-green algae will be the solution to the problems of the bay, I will be satisfied that it has finally given up.

Mr. Morgan: Further to my hon. Friend's gob being figuratively smacked by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and mine in turn by the idea that, in order to provide the water quality that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Panarth (Mr. Michael) and I want, both of us having a riparian constituency interest in the lake, algae can be genetically engineered to self-destruct at the right moment, is that the algal equivalent of pigs flying?

Mr. Davies: I think that that is a rhetorical question.
Before you remind me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am dealing with new clause 6 which refers to phosphate and nitrate stripping. I am referring particularly to phospate stripping because the report goes on to say:
Reducing phosphorous availability would be effective but even total control of point sources is likely to leave diffuse sources which may be adequate for blue-green algal bloom production.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said earlier, that means that although it may well be possible to pinpoint, and deal with, particularly concentrated areas of pollution—there is no suggestion that the Bill will deal with them—there would still be the regular routine leaching or seeping into water courses and into the bay of waters containing phosphates.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you have any information about reports that the French and the Americans have now accepted the Prime Minister's proposals to bring immediate help to the Kurds? If those reports are true—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): No, I have not heard anything about that at all.

Mr. Nicholls: Would it be possible, through the usual channels, for the Foreign Secretary to come along and give that information to the House because it would be the most welcome news?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Doubtless that will be passed on.

Mr. Davies: The report says:
The control of diffuse sources is much more difficult and would still leave the previously introduced phosphorous within lake and reservoir muds being available for several years.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the immediate need for action, but even if that were to happen and phosphate pollution ceased now, residual phosphate pollution of the muds will continue for five years or more.
12.30 am
The report states:
Permanent destratification methods are likely to depress the growth of blue-green algae in reservoirs indefinitely, but only if the mixed depth considerably exceeds the depth which sustains algal growth.
That will not be feasible in terms of the barrage. The report continues:


Intermittent destratification would be subject to similar conditions and whilst it could depress the growth of all major algae it is a technique untried on the full reservoir scale.
So much for that.
The report then goes on to detail research and development, and certainly that is the only way in which a solution will be found. It states:
Research and development in relation to blue-green algae blooms and their toxins fall into three broad areas: those relating to the formation and control of blue-green algal blooms, research specifically related to the toxins that they produce and research into the effect of the toxins. A number of possible methods for controlling algal populations have been suggested in the report, all of which require improvements or basic research before they could be described as being effective.
That is the essence of the problem. The NRA, after studying the most recent research, has concluded emphatically that more research needs to be done before an effective solution to the problem is found.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I have listened with interest to the discussion about the way in which the problem must be tackled. The need for more research has been outlined in the NRA report. Does the NRA venture to suggest a time scale in which the problem might be dealt with? If the barrage went ahead before a solution to the problem of the algae had been found, how many years would people have to suffer the possibility of toxin poisoning and goodness knows what else?

Mr. Davies: No time scale was offered in the NRA report, but it discussed not only improving existing techniques for control but basic research. We are talking not about a scheme that already exists but needs fine-tuning, but about basic research.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is right that we are still talking about research rather than any practical prospect of being able to choke the sources of nutrients through sewage that can lead to highly eutrophic water and the right conditions for blooms. If there was any evidence in the Bill or in protective clauses signed by Welsh Water and the NRA that they had a solution to excess nutrients arising from sewage flowing into the waters of the bay, that would be fine; we could do without some of the airy-fairy ideas about genetically engineered algae. However, no whit of an approach has been made to solve the problem of storm sewer overflows that bring additional sewage into the rivers that feed into the lake.
Phosphate and nitrate stripping is specifically covered by another of our new clauses because the two Cilfynydd sewerage works that drain the Cynon valley and the upper Taff—Aberdare, Merthyr and so on—will continue to provide treated sewage in the future. It does not contain any solids and it is suitably clean for a flowing river, but that treated sewage will come down the river. We know that, in the summer, half the flow in the river Ely and one third of that in the river Taff is treated sewage. That is what gives the rivers the peculiarly pungent smell that one experiences in July and August when walking along their banks. No solution to the problem has so far been provided.

Mr. Davies: It is clear from my hon. Friend's intervention that we all agree that the problem has three dimensions—or, at least, three areas that require action. First, there is the problem of the existing sewer outfalls and the need to ensure that the controlled effluent is properly treated. Secondly, we need to recognise that, even if we

achieved that now, there would still be a problem in the lagoon and a need to find some way of treating not only the blue-green algae but the toxins. I fear that the third matter—the leaching into the river of pollutants from the domestic areas of our valleys—has not received adequate attention. I refer, for example, to leaching from Berw road in Pontypridd and from the settlements right across the Taff and Ely river valleys. There is an enormous amount of casual spillage and pollution of all sorts goes into the rivers. Even if we tackle the problem of the existing sewer outfalls, that problem will remain. Action is needed on all three fronts.
The section of the report dealing with research and development concludes:
Little is known about the environmental behaviour and fate of the toxins produced by blue-green algae.
In other words, even if we could deal with the problem of blue-green algae, we would still know little about the toxins themselves. The report says:
Better analytical techniques, toxicity testing methods and reference collection material are needed, as is research to determine the mechanism used by the algae for, and the effect of environmental controls on, toxin production.
In its latest updated report, the National Rivers Authority, which has specific responsibility for the problem, concludes that not enough is known about the toxins produced by the algae. What we do know, however, is that if one comes into casual contact with them, one is likely to suffer sickness and diarrhoea and all the other ailments that we have described and that if one's dog or stock go near the water, they will die. We may not know the precise mechanisms involved but we certainly know that the toxins can create the most difficult problems.
The debate that we have just had—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am not suggesting for one moment that we are concluding the debate. The debate thus far has shown—

Mr. Flynn: More.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is encouraging us to say more, but I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to make brief speeches of their own and that is why I am anxious to bring my brief contribution to a close.
It is clear that there is enormous doubt about the wisdom of building the barrage purely on the grounds of the quality of the water that will be impounded in the lagoon. We have made it clear beyond any doubt that people will not be able to swim or fish in it. They will not be able to touch it or surf on it. It is doubtful whether the dragon races will be able to be held. For much of the year, rather than being an attraction or a benefit to the city of Cardiff, the lagoon will be a disbenefit. If anything is guaranteed to convince us that the Bill deserves to fail, it is the certain knowledge that if it proceeds we shall be creating a monster that will be very difficult to control.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I rise to speak succinctly and in an impassioned fashion. I say that because I am sure that, at this time in the morning, the House is more likely to be moved by the crisp logic of Russell, Wittgenstein and Professor Ayer than by the beautiful language of the romantic poets which I normally use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who moved the Second Reading of the new clause, spoke lucidly, quietly and in devastating and impressive fashion. At one stage he paused and invited the


Minister to intervene: he wanted to know whether the Minister, given his specialist knowledge and advice, was prepared to say how much or how little pollution would end up in the lagoon that would be protected by the barrage. The Minister—who, for the purposes of the Bill, is clearly trying to turn silence into an art form—said nothing. I am not sure whether he has been struck dumb, or whether he has been converted to the old German proverb "Schweigen ist geld." I have always believed less that silence is golden than that, all too often, it is a mask for ignorance: certainly that is what Welsh people believe about the Minister, from Cardiff to Tenby and from Haverfordwest to Meinclochog.
At another point, one of the Bill's supporters asked my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd whether he could quantify the pollution that would end up in the lagoon. That is taking things a bit too far; with respect to my hon. Friend, it is a bit cheeky. He is relatively new to the House and may not know much about our procedures, but I am sure that he knows—no doubt he had his tongue in his cheek—that when hon. Members sponsor and speak in support of a Bill with such enormous implications, the burden of proof must be placed on them. It is their responsibility to reveal the damage, or the limits of the damage, that the Bill will cause. It is rather sad that, in this instance, the sponsors have not done their homework and given us that information.
I fear that, if we pass the Bill without the new clause and those grouped with it, rather than champagne dribbling into the valleys because of its economic advantages, poison will dribble into the sea and will then be washed back towards the valleys. I fear that environmental damage will prevent the natural toxic disintegration of nitrates and phosphates that might occur if the barrage were not built.
The sponsors say that the Secretary of State and the National Rivers Authority have all the powers that they need to get rid of the pollution. I must ask them not to allow their enthusiasm to be overrun by their naivety. They must know that, when there are conflicts between commerce and the environment, insidious, unspoken forces often prevent both the NRA and the Secretary of State from doing what they should do—and that is assuming, which I do not, that in this case they have the powers to make effective what they want to do.
Some 20 years ago I worked in what was then the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, where I dealt with planning appeals. Sometimes I passed them on to the Minister, but sometimes I was the last port of call and the writ of Sedgemore would run: I would make the decision. When I see a new clause like this—I do not want to discuss private Bill procedure; we are using it in any event—I ask myself what I would have done had I been faced with a planning application and one of the objectors had come up with this proposal and wanted to attach it to the application as a condition. I would have said to those who were appealing, "There is no chance on earth that I will grant your application unless the new clauses are included." The sooner that the sponsors say that they are prepared to accept them, the sooner we can move on.

Mr. Alan Williams: I wish to make two comments about the proposed new clauses. I congratulate hon. Members on their lengthy, detailed and expert contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke about all the new clauses in the group and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)

concentrated on the one in which he is especially interested, which is new clause 6 on phosphate and nitrate stripping.
12.45 am
My first detailed knowledge of the Cardiff barrage came from a film about the proposal made in 1988 or 1989 by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The two main arguments advanced in that film dealt with the proposal's effect on wildlife, the wading birds, and the danger of eutrophication in the new bay from nitrates and phosphates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd estimated that about 500,000 people live in the Taff and Ely valleys, the valleys of the rivers that feed the Ely and the Rhondda valley. It is the most densely populated area in Wales and, apart from London, one of the most densely populated areas in Great Britain. It is a fact of life that all those people produce sewage which, even when it is properly treated, leaves nitrates and phosphates, and those chemicals are found in the Taff and the Ely. Nitrates and phosphates would be trapped behind the proposed barrage, creating an ideal environment for eutrophication.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) asked for figures and was told that it is up to the Bill's sponsors to produce them. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd spoke about 3 million cu m of rubbish in the Ferry road tip. [Interruption.] I have seen quoted a figure of 3 million tonnes of phosphates. About 1,000 tonnes of phosphates from sewage come down the Taff and Ely every year. There is another 1,000 tonnes from the use of fertilisers and about 500 tonnes from detergents. There is a danger that the bay will have a eutrophied environment, certainly in the summer.
Nitrates and phosphates are fertilisers and, in warm weather, they cause plants to multiply. There is no nitrate or phosphate in the open ocean and there is therefore little plant life there because it has to depend on the availability of other nutrients. In an ideal environment there is always a danger of eutrophication. New clause 6 asks the undertakers to publish a plan showing how they will carry out phosphate and nitrate stripping should that prove necessary. Perhaps in the first three to five years there will be no serious problem, but it is probable rather than possible that in future there will be a serious problem of phosphates and nitrates. What will the undertakers do to remove those chemicals? Their removal calls for expensive technologies, the cost of which I shall deal with later.
It has been known for 10 or 20 years, for example, that eutrophication is a serious problem in the Norfolk Broads. The Observer reported last year that the Nature Conservancy Council has found that the Broads had lost their rare plant life because of pollution and that they contained little more than algae and bacteria. When there is an algal bloom, the dead algae use up a great deal of oxygen. That means that the oxygen concentration goes through peaks and troughs in a 24-hour cycle. During the middle of the day there may be plenty of oxygen, but in the middle of the night the dead algae will consume a lot of oxygen. That has a knock-on effect on all animal life and fish in the water. Serious problems that are the result of high phosphate concentrations in Lake Erie have been well documented for the past 20 or 30 years.
It has been suggested on several occasions during the debate that there are solutions to the algae part of the giant hoover effect, as described by my hon. Friend the Member


for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). It has been said that there may be a technological fix to the problem, but in so many technologies we are a bit too clever by half. For example, the River Colorado is an environmental disaster in many ways. An episode of "Horizon" about 10 or 15 years ago was entitled, "Where did the Colorado go?" I am sure that the House knows that the River Colorado no longer reaches the sea; it ends in a desert in Mexico. That is because along its length there over 100 reservoirs, the waters of which are used by farmers for irrigation. There is massive evaporation. The spreading of water over large areas of land greatly accelerates natural evaporation, and as the river flows from America into Mexico there is much less water than that which nature intended. It does not reach the—

Mr. Michael: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 15.

Division No. 116]
[12.52 am


AYES


Amess, David
Jack, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Jackson, Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jessel, Toby


Arnold, Sir Thomas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Knapman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Boswell, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bowis, John
Lightbown, David


Boyes, Roland
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
Mans, Keith


Bright, Graham
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Moss, Malcolm


Carrington, Matthew
Murphy, Paul


Cash, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Chapman, Sydney
Norris, Steve


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Rowe, Andrew


Dixon, Don
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Shaw, David (Dover)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Durant, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fearn, Ronald
Stern, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Stevens, Lewis


Foster, Derek
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Gale, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Thorne, Neil


Goodlad, Alastair
Thurnham, Peter


Grist, Ian
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Trippier, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Wallace, James


Hawkins, Christopher
Watts, John


Hayes, Jerry
Wheeler, Sir John


Hind, Kenneth
Widdecombe, Ann


Home Robertson, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wood, Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. Alun Michael and


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Mr. Gwilym Jones.


Irvine, Michael






NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Rogers, Allan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Salmond, Alex


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Dr. Kim Howells and


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Ted Rowlands.


Nellist, Dave

Whereupon MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 ( Majority for Closure).

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have lost this vote very heavily—and I use the words "the Government" advisedly. At the beginning of the debate we heard a point of order concerning the Rt. Hon. David Hunt, the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members are not referred to by name; they are referred to by constituency.

Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State for Wales wrote to all his Government colleagues, saying:
Because of the conventions on private Bills"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was in the House when this matter was raised some hours ago. I doubt very much whether I can add to what was said by the Chair on that occasion.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have received from any member of the Government a request for permission to make a statement to explain the mess. It appears that the Government have collapsed in chaos. As you, Sir, have said, the question of the letter from the Secretary of State for Wales was raised earlier today. In effect, that letter imposed a semi-official Whip. The Government cannot sustain a closure motion, and are clearly in disarray.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received no such request.

Mr. Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation. At least half the payroll vote is unavailable, despite—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not in an unprecedented situation at all. We have had a Division, the result of the Division has been announced, and we shall now resume the debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is just conceivable that, earlier this evening, you saw the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) explain on television that the Government are in a state of collapse. The right hon. Gentleman has been on the box about three times, pointing out that there are saboteurs in the Tory party. He has taken the rebels home, and has left the Government without the necessary 100 supporters. He has turned them into a rabble.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Earlier I was speaking in support of new clause 6 and phosphate and nitrate stripping. Eutrophication may occur a few years after construction of the barrage. If so, the waters that feed it will have to be stripped of nitrates and phosphates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) spoke impressively about toxic algae, with which we have had considerable problems in the past two years. There was an incident two years ago at Rutland water, where dogs and sheep died simply from drinking the water. Last year, there were appalling problems along the north-east coast.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening, but some of us have been in the Chamber for—

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Too long.

Mr. Davies: That illustrates the point that I want to make. Some hon. Members have been present since the start of this business. The Bill is of much concern to our constituents. We wish to debate it and listen to other points of view. Will you look at the rabble on the Conservative Benches? They are engaged in a deliberate campaign against my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) of barracking or trying to disrupt his speech. [Interruption.] They are at it again. Will you ensure the same order and good manners that we had before that crowd came into the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that hon. Members heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will respond to it.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As people are coming in here half-sozzled, would not it be a good idea for you to order the bars to be closed?

Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I have the distinct impression that this debate is becoming impossible because of the noise that is emanating from the Conservative Benches—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems that the noise is coming equally from both sides of the House, and it is unacceptable from either side. I very much hope that the normal courtesies that are extended to any hon. Member will be observed.

Mr. Williams: I am finding it quite difficult to continue with so many interruptions. The vote was one thing, but the continual chatter makes it difficult to discuss expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money.

Dr. Marek: The vote showed that the House believes that this important Bill should not be hurried and that the new clauses are important. I am not sure that I shall be able to contribute to the debate before the second closure, so will my hon. Friend appeal to the Under-Secretary of State to give us the view of the Welsh Office? The Under-Secretary is shaking his head.

Mr. Morley: Disgraceful.

Dr. Marek: It is disgraceful. We have heard of the letter saying that the Welsh Office is behind the Bill. It has instructed all its Ministers to be here, yet those Ministers are not prepared to stand up and say even one sentence

about whether the clause is right or wrong. Does not my hon. Friend think that that is disgraceful? Will he appeal to the Minister to speak?

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his worthy contribution. If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), the junior Minister, wishes to intervene, I will be willing to give way at any time. We need the view of the Welsh Office and of the Government on the Bill. Since 7 o'clock 90 per cent. of what has been said has been critical of the Bill. We have had two powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I am pleased that as a result of the Division we have been given more time to elaborate the arguments about pollution.
In relation to the problems of phosphates and nitrates that will be trapped, I said a few moments ago that the toxic algae problem appeared in 1989. Last year we had severe problems along the north-east coast from algal blooms. Indeed, the sale of shellfish had to be stopped for several weeks. The livelihood of 3,000 fishermen who collect mussels, prawns, crab and so on was jeopardised when toxins in shellfish were found to be up to 50 times the permitted concentrations.
Inland waters were also affected by algal blooms last year; 501 reservoirs and inland lakes were affected, including one in my constituency, by problems caused by nitrates and phosphates. What if similar problems emerge in the Cardiff bay barrage? What will be done about nitrate and phosphate stripping? Is the technology available? Will money be available?
In new clause 6 we call on the undertakers to publish a plan for phosphate and nitrate stripping of the waters entering the inland bay if that becomes necessary, and to demonstrate to us that that can be done. We want the undertakers to tell us whether it is technically possible and to explain how it will be done.
It is difficult to remove nitrates and phosphates from water. Water can be denitrified by the use of bacteria, but that cannot be done on a large scale. Ion exchange methods can be used to replace the nitrates by chlorides. Precipitation methods using ferric sulphate can deal with phosphates, but it is very expensive. I have a quote which shows how expensive it is. It was from the former Secretary of State for the Environment—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is still an excess of sedentary conversation.

Mr. Williams: The former Secretary of State for the Environment, now the chairman of the Conservative party, estimated last year—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask members of the Government Front Bench to respect the conventions of the House and allow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Williams: The cost of removing phosphates and nitrates from Britain's sewage before it is dumped at sea would involve building secondary sewerage plant at a cost of up to £7 billion. That could become necessary if algal blooms became a recurrent problem in the North sea. For the Taff and Ely, pro rata, the figure would work out at up to £100 million. That is in addition to the costs of building


the barrage. If we find in a year or two or whenever that there is a serious problem of the eutrophication of toxic algae, it could cost anything up to £100 million to clear.
New clause 6 asks simply that the promoters produce a plan of how they would tackle the problem, to show that it can be done and that there will be a commitment that the money will be made available.

Mr. Flynn: In the babble, I think that we have lost some of the subtleties of my hon. Friend's argument. I know that there have been cases of eutrophication in the Yns Y Fro reservoir in my constituency and serious eutrophica-tion of blue-green algae on Rutland water. Those problems have been cleared up and, as far as I know, those and hundreds of other stretches of water are operational again. But is my hon. Friend saying that they have been cleared up at the cost he said, or something similar?

Mr. Williams: No, eutrophication is seasonal—it comes and goes. It comes in warm weather. If the hon. Gentleman had listened intently to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly he would have realised that eutrophication is temperature dependent. It does not occur in winter, but when there are long days and warm weather algae multiplies rapidly, and then goes away. But let us suppose that it becomes a recurrent problem, and there is every possibility that that could happen, especially in the Rivers Taff and Ely because there is a terrific population of half a million people there, and the sewage effluent is continually fed into the rivers. Therefore, the waters are naturally high in nitrogen phosphate. If there is a regular, recurrent problem, and there are not to be fish deaths year after year—one of the side-effects of algae blooms—one must tackle the problem at source. If one does that, one is talking of costs running up to about £100 million to clear the problem.

Mr. Rogers: The argument of my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is that the construction of the barrage will cause pollution in the lagoon area behind it. There is no doubt about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly stressed the possible effect on the health of the people living around the district. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen is now stressing the enormous cost that it might pose to taxpayers in general in order to alleviate problems that could arise. Surely it would be much better if the Bill's promoters accepted that, in order to have development in the Cardiff bay district, there is absolutely no need to have a barrage that does not add a single square foot to the amount of land available for industrial and housing development. The only reason why the barrage is being constructed, which will then create all the pollution problems, is—as the report states—to create a water vista and enhance the prices of houses around it. From the arguments put forward on that issue alone, that seems an enormous price to pay for a water vista.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend's contribution sum-marises very well the strong feeling of the Opposition Members who have contributed most to the debate—the barrage is for purely visual effect and will not create or pull in any jobs. Of course, we want the districts of Cardiff to be developed and maximum industry and jobs pulled into

them. None of us is against that. We are in the Labour party because we believe that Government and public funds should be used in that way. But, in terms of trapping the water, flooding the mud flats, which are important for wild life and wading birds, and creating a potential environmental disaster, the barrage is an appalling waste of public money. That money could be far better used in the health service, in infrastructure or in a number of other ways.

Mr. Rogers: Since I posed those questions I think that I have found the answer in the evidence of Chesterton Professional Services, which were employed by Cardiff Bay development corporation. In its report it says that the full barrage would have a betterment effect on the land in the area, increasing its value from £114 million to £347 million. That is the reason why the barrage is being constructed. It is designed not to add to the economic development of Cardiff but to make money for these people.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend makes an excellent case. I cannot understand why, when the economy is in the crisis that it is, we are wasting our money in this way.
New clause 17 concerns eliminating the risks of pollution from leachates, especialy from the Ferry road tip. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd dealt at length with the problems associated with the Ferry road tip, which contains 3 million cu m of rubbish, which is not toxic waste but mainly domestic. Nevertheless, it is an enormous quantity. The onus should be on the undertakers to show that the tip can be sealed off and that there will be no leachate from it. I think that the hon. Member for Pontypridd demonstrated the logical trap that the undertakers are in as regards this tip. First, they have been thinking of moving the whole tip and trying to relocate it, perhaps in Stormy Down—I do not know.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is looking at me furiously. I was not suggesting that. I think that the tip should stay exactly where it is.
I read another story, although I do not know whether it is a possibility, saying that all the contents of the tip could be put in trains and carried to Bedfordshire at a cost of £40 million. That was a serious proposal, but I do not know whether it is a runner. Is not it the height of absurdity to be carrying the domestic rubbish of 10, 20 or 30 years ago in trains 200 miles across the country to bury it in Bedfordshire? I wonder what the people of Bedfordshire think about that? The trains would be incredibly smelly because the waste has half-decayed anaerobically. The putrefaction and the smell would be incredible.

Mr. Skinner: Is it going to go by rail?

Mr. Williams: I am not sure whether it will. Given this Government, perhaps it will be taken in lorries along the M4. Imagine being stuck behind one of those lorries on the Severn bridge for half an hour in a traffic jam.
Can the Ferry road tip be sealed? What are the alternatives? Is there a way to seal that sort of tip so that no leachates would reach the barrage? Frankly, I do not think that we can seal tips that effectively, especially as the water table may be raised and that such tips give off methane the whole time. The problem of the tip defeats this proposal.
I ask hon. Members to support this set of new clauses. In opposing the construction of the barrage, I think that there are strong environmental reasons why the project should not go ahead.

Mr. Morgan: While the Government Whips, the promoters and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) are absent from the Chamber, having a confab about what they should do in the circumstances, I wish to raise some additional points, some of which would be better raised in the presence of my hon. Friend. Indeed, I wished to pay him a compliment and to say that, as far as I am concerned, he is a prominent environmentalist in the Cardiff context. I am sure that he will be willing to concede that I am the same, and that we are both doing the Lord's work—he is doing it in his way, and I am doing it in the Lord's way, but we are nevertheless both doing the Lord's work. I very much admire my hon. Friend's approach, although I believe that our approach, as incorporated in these five new clauses, following the attempt to terminate the debate which, fortunately, fell rather flat because of the Government's disarray—

Mr. Win Griffiths: It would never have happened under the former Prime Minister.

Mr. Morgan: Yes, Tory schism is at work here, as well as dither. One tactic that the Government may adopt—

Mr. Griffiths: They are taking legal advice.

Mr. Morgan: Not only that—they are also trying to gather the duvet vote, but if they look for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope that they go to his present residence at No. 11 Downing street and not to his former residence, or they may get a lesson in what goes on at night in London. That tactic should be approached carefully.
During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made many strong pleas to my hon. Friends, saying that we should not be promoting new clause 5 on leachate; new clause 6 on phosphate and nitrate stripping; new clause 8 on sewage removal; new clause 17 on the future of the Ferry road tip; and new clause 19 on algal scum disposal—

Mr. Skinner: What is that?

Mr. Morgan: I can draw it for my hon. Friend, although I am not sure that one can adequately describe it. However, if my hon. Friend were to come down on one of the free trips that the Cardiff Bay development corporation may offer him, I could show him—

Mr. Skinner: No.

Mr. Morgan: Well, it is a case of whatever turns you on, is it not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If my hon. Friend will not come down to Cardiff, I shall have to do my best later to explain what algal scum is.
I am pleased that I shall now have the chance to discuss the five new clauses as I wrote every single word of them myself. It is a sign of the good sense of the House that, being aware that I had not had the chance to speak to provisions that I had drafted late at night in the Library, pity was taken on me. Much as they would like to make

further progress, hon. Members thought that it was not fair to close the debate until I had had a chance to say a word or two about the new clauses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth takes a different approach to the new clauses. He accepts that these five subjects are critical to the acceptability of the Bill. I know that they are critical and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontrypridd, who made his maiden speech on the Bill, also accepted that they are critical. This is one of the most important of our many important debates on the acceptability of the barrage, its side effects and direct and indirect consequences. We must consider whether an amenity lake of the quality about which we are talking will actually be an amenity lake, and if it is not an amenity lake in the normal accepted definition of the phrase in 1995, when it might open for business, or in 2005, when standards will have risen further, there is no point in having it. We should be terribly derelict in our duty if we did not consider whether the barrage will be worth the candle unless by 2005 it can provide the amenities that people will expect at a level appropriate to that year and not to the lower 1985 standards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, "All those things are mentioned in the Bill. Phosphate and nitrate stripping, algal scum and the Ferry road tip are all mentioned." We have not invented the subject matter of the new clauses; we have merely taken it from the existing Bill and incorporated it differently to give greater assurances. We ask that the House does not approve the Bill until the promoters show how they will solve the well-known environmental problems. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth were here, he would accept that his position is that the National Rivers Authority, Welsh Water or other appropriate bodies have suitable undertakings and that we should take it on trust that those undertakings will be put into effect in accordance with the standards laid down by those bodies. However, the problem is that the NRA, for example, did not exist on the previous occasion when objections could be made to the Bill, when it came from the other place to this House.
On this Bill, the NRA did not have the chance to formulate the bargaining position that it has on the River Usk Barrage Bill, which has entered the other place. The NRA is objecting strongly to that Bill. According to a conversation that I had with it this morning, there is more than a 50–50 chance that it will be able to maintain that objection throughout the negotiations with the promoters.
The NRA came into existence on 1 September 1988. The last day for objecting to this Bill was some six weeks before that, on 26 July. Until 1 September, the Welsh division of the NRA was merely a subsidiary of Welsh Water. If Welsh Water did not want to object to the Bill —and it did not—there was nothing that the people who five weeks later formed the NRA could do. We were told that they did want to object, but we shall never really know the answer to that.
By 1 September, when the NRA came into existence, it could not object because the closing date for objections was 26 July. The NRA's bargaining position is therefore extremely weak. It must obtain the best bargain that it can. That is all that it can do. It can say that it wants a fish pass which will use the latest available and best technology. On the Usk barrage it can say that if the promoters do not provide a fish pass that the NRA likes, it will stop the Bill.
On the Cardiff bay barrage it can try to bargain for an adequate fish pass, but in the end the promoters can say, "This is the best fish pass that we can come up with, but we are going ahead with the Bill because you did not exist as a separate body with a specific duty of conservation of aquatic flora and fauna until it was too late to object." The NRA will not be able to insist on a fish pass, for example.
We are not discussing fisheries yet. We are discussing algal scum, phosphates, leachates and water quality in general.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Those matters still have an effect on the fish.

Mr. Morgan: They certainly do. The same principle undoubtedly applies to phosphate and nitrate stripping, the matter dealt with in new clause 6.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has come back into the Chamber. I have been speaking about him in glowing and complimentary terms as an environmentalist who approaches the problem from a slightly different angle from me. I am asking how things are to be done before the barrage is built. I am not prepared to take it on trust that the appropriate authorities are happy with the undertakings that they have received. Such authorities are in the weak bargaining position that I have described. They could not object to the Bill because they did not exist when the opportunity was available to do so. I paraphrase briefly for my hon. Friend what I have said in the past few minutes.
Tonight we are trying to decide whether the approach of the new clauses is more relevant for achieving the standards that everyone will seek in the year 2005, or whether the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is more appropriate. His approach is that the National Rivers Authority says that it has an undertaking which is long and detailed and refers to algal scum, water quality, future water quality standards and what it will have to do to enforce them. But in its present bargaining position, if we do not retrospectively include the provisions for which the NRA would have asked if it had existed on 26 July—the last day for submitting objections to the Bill—

Mr. Cryer: Another aspect on which my hon. Friend may wish to comment is the letter from the Secretary of State for Wales demonstrating strong support for the Bill. I remind my hon. Friend that the current chairman of the National Rivers Authority is Lord Crickhowell, a former Secretary of State for Wales. Therefore, unless something is included in the Bill, people might suspect that the standards of environmental protection that my hon. Friend regards as desirable—I am sure that that view is shared by the whole House—might go by the board. Whether or not their suspicions are accurate, people may believe that there is a conspiracy between successive Secretaries of State for Wales to get through the House what is referred to in the letter as a "very exciting project". It is important for ensuring decent standards of conduct in public life that the safeguards that my hon. Friend seeks are included in the Bill.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend enables me to refer to the new Tory tendency of trying to be all things to all men, one

of the descriptions of our new and much-loved Prime Minister, particularly among Opposition Members but not so much among Tory Members. That was the criticism of the Prime Minister made, I think, by Sir Alan Walters, in this rash of criticism that has broken out.
The Secretary of State for Wales has been doing the same thing. The letter to which my hon. Friend referred has been sent to all members of the Cabinet to tell their Parliamentary Private Secretaries to be here tonight—some were obviously lost in the post, or there would have been 115 here. Perhaps the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries has been reduced dramatically since last weekend—we are not quite sure which.
The same subject was covered by another letter which the Secretary of State wrote on 16 April, faxed to Ian Prestt, the director general of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, an extremely distinguished former senior civil servant in the Department of the Environment. It said:
I cannot accept your allegation that my letter of 31 March is 'tantamount to an official whip'. The Government has consistently made clear its substantial interest in the objectives of the Bill.
So far so good. That is the same as the letter sent to members of the Cabinet. Then the Secretary of State for Wales went on:
Subject only to the additional work and consultation on ground water, I remain committed to the barrage as the best way of assisting the regeneration of Cardiff Bay.
There is no mention of that in his letter to the Cabinet; nothing about the duties that he will have to discharge subject to the enactment of the Bill in saying whether there should be a final go or no-go decision on the barrage depending on the decisions on ground water and the public consultation exercise at the end of the year. Why should he be sending a different message to his Cabinet colleagues and hiding from them the fact that he has this quasi-judicial role in the early months of next year when, trying to be all things to all men, he tells the RSPB that of course he is aware of all his additional duties arising from the Bill? Why did he not send the same message to his fellow Cabinet members when he wrote telling them to be here as though this was the last word on the Bill?
How far should promoters have to go? Should they have to explain to the House how they propose to solve the giant problems of the project? Take, for example, the Ferry road tip dealt with in new clause 17. That new clause says that before the barrage is constructed the promoters must produce and publish their proposals for the future of the Ferry road tip. We all realise that what happens to that tip is vital to the viability of the barrage, the cleanliness of the water in the barrage and the availability of land for development in the barrage. The protective clauses mention that but they do not say what is to be done and it is important that we should try to establish that at this stage through the publication of a proposal for the Ferry road tip. The Cardiff Bay development corporation has been operating in secrecy and speaking with forked tongue on the subject.

Mr. Skinner: One reason why the promoters are not terribly worried about including the safeguards that my hon. Friend is outlining is that the Government have a majority of 150 and they know that they can shove private Bills through in the middle of the night. They need only keep a few Members here—they have not made it tonight, that is true—and the safeguards can go by the board. The


Government will put on an official or semi-official Whip in order to get the Bill through. That has been the feature of such legislation since 1979. The Government's majority has enabled the promoters to get away with blue murder. They have used the Government's built-in majority rather than allowing such matters to be dealt with on a non-party basis.

Mr. Morgan: I could not agree more.
The Secretary of State has spoken with forked tongue through his front organisation, the Cardiff' Bay development corporation, on the precise subject of new clause 17, which states:
'Before commencement of impounding by means of the barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish proposals for the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the city council that no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur.'.
1.45 am
Consider what we have learnt from the Touche Ross report. That report was undertaken at the insistence of the Welsh Office for the Cardiff city council to aid its execution of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That report states:
The intentions of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation have affected the waste management planning in Cardiff adversely. Accepting the political reality, the intentions of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation with respect to Ferry Road should be finalised.
That is exactly what we are saying. We believe that they should be produced and published. The report states that the consultants
feel however that CBDC has grossly underestimated the logistic, environmental, health and safety problems associated with exhuming 2 million cubic metres of waste"—
let alone with transporting that to Bedford. Now we come to the interesting part of the report, which the Welsh Office will know all about as it is mentioned. It says:
The Consultants have, in fact, following informal discussions with the Welsh Office, intimated that the removal of the tip may not now proceed in full.
What will be done? We do not know. In public it is said that the tip will be removed, probably to Bedfordshire, or possibly to some other site in south Wales.

Dr. Marek: It would help the House if my hon. Friend could give the reasons for the existence of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Does it have any social objectives, or is it in it just for the money? What are its terms of reference? What were the terms of reference for Touche Ross? Only when we know precisely those terms of reference can we interpret the information that my hon. Friend has provided objectively.

Mr. Morgan: It would detain the House unduly if I went over the purposes of the corporation—I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your eagle eye and ear would prevent me. It had something to do with creating a superlative maritme city in Cardiff and reuniting the old docks area with the city centre.
The commission given by Cardiff city council to Touche Ross was designed to enable it to comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That Act stated that by last Friday all local authorities in Wales had to produce proposals on how they intended to manage waste disposal in their areas. The new scheme introduced LAWDACS —local authority waste disposal authorities and companies—while the local authority monitoring role in

connection with waste disposal had to separate from the actual collection and from disposal of that waste. Local authorities had to produce their relevant proposals by Friday.
In October 1990, the Cardiff city council hired Touche Ross to produce those proposals. The consultants referred to the "informal discussions" that had gone on behind closed doors with the Welsh Office. The public in Cardiff know nothing about those discussions, and, contrary to all the published evidence in the press and the general impression that the Ferry road tip would be removed, the consultants employed by the council have been told informally by the Welsh Office that no such thing will happen. They have been told that the tip will not be moved, or that not all of it will be moved, or that it will simply be moved from one half of the site to another.
A form of waste disposal alps may be created, with a low-level site in one part of the Ferry road tip and a high-level site in another. It beats me how that can be done with decomposing refuse, but I understand that that is the sort of proposal that the Welsh Office is now discussing with consultants. The general public do not know that, Parliament does not know it, the Select Committee was not told it. We were all told, "There are other options, but the favoured solution is the removal of the Ferry road tip to Bedford." To dispense with such confusion, we must be clear, before the corporation starts impounding the water, what it proposes to do with the tip. It cannot say one thing to the public in Cardiff and another behindhand to the Welsh Office, which may then, it seems, talk to consultants here and there without the knowledge of Parliament or of voters in Cardiff.

Mr. Cryer: I am tempted by my hon. Friend's comments and by the comments made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to ask for confirmation that there is no guarantee that, if the tip is moved in whole or in part, it will be moved by environmentally friendly railway and not by environment-ally hostile heavy juggernauts thundering through Cardiff and down many highways and by-ways before reaching Bedfordshire or wherever else it is dumped. The Government have an anti-rail policy, and it is clear that, with no guarantees laid down, thousands of lorry movements may be required to get rid of such a huge tip. Does my hon. Friend agree that if it had definitely been stated that there would be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention?

Mr. Cryer: I am enabling my hon. Friend to have a drink of water, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and so killing two birds with one stone. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if that had been clearly stated, Cardiff citizens would be lining the streets in protest at the proposal?

Mr. Morgan: Having a drink of London tap water reminds one of what an important subject water quality is —for all of us, both now and in future. My hon. Friend is entirely right, and it is very much an open question. Let us suppose that the tip removal went ahead in part or in whole, which is what most members of the public in Cardiff think will happen given all the official public statements about the preferred option. The waste would probably go by road if it went to the site in Mid Glamorgan that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) mentioned, causing the hon. Member for


Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) to jump 3 ft off the ground. If the waste were taken to Bedfordshire, however, I am reasonably assured that the move would be feasible only by long-distrance rail haulage. Contrary to the impression given in Cardiff, secret negotiations are taking place with a view to leaving the tip in place or shovelling it around —landscaping it or making it a golf course, a playing field or whatever. To be honest, we do not know what will happen. I do not think that the proposals have gone that far. It looks as though the promoters have been speaking with forked tongue and the public in Cardiff and Parliament have been grossly misled.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend was asked a straight and simple question about the possibility or likelihood of the tip removal involving large numbers of lorry movements through the streets of Cardiff. Perhaps he knows something that I do not know. As I understand it, the removal would—or will—involve train movements and not lorry movements. Does my hon. Friend agree with me on that simple point? If not, can he give me the authority for any doubts that he has on the matter?

Mr. Morgan: Yes, I shall be happy to clarify the matter as far as I can. Suppose that the tip is wholly or partly removed. If it is taken to the site in Mid Glamorgan that was referred to, I do not know of a railhead that could be used. That was my point. The waste would therefore have to go by road. I understand, however, that if the waste went to Bedfordshire, it would go by rail. My hon. Friend is right, however, that if the waste went to the site in Mid Glamorgan, it would not travel through residential streets, although it would travel quite close to some streets of new estate houses in my constituency, along a main haulage dual carriageway.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has clarified the position. I understand that, when disposal to sites outside south Wales is considered, rail transport proves to be the only option. However, my hon. Friend keeps referring to other options relating to, for instance, sites in Mid Glamorgan. Has he any authority for that, or is it another of the red herrings that featured in an earlier stage of discussion about the tip? I know of no such suggestion.

Mr. Morgan: If my hon. Friend is in a position to say that former quarry sites in Mid Glamorgan owned by Wimpey Waste Management are definitely off limits through some process of debarring, he had better intervene again. I have the impression from the development corporation's statements that if it removes the site—which is still its public and official line—it will be up to waste management contractors to put in the best offer: outfits such as Wimpey Waste Management, which owns the enormous quarry in the southern part of Mid Glamorgan, and Shanks McEwan in Bedford. If Wimpey Waste Management won the contract, perhaps the development corporation would deal with it, feeling obliged to accept the best offer. Neither company would be debarred.

Mr. Win Griffiths (Ogwr): When the possibility of the Ferry road tip being taken by the lorryload and put into the old quarries at Stormy Down was raised, Ogur borough council, as the planning authority, resolved in principle that it would not be suitable to move the tip to the large hole in Stormy Down, which is in my

constituency. Many of the councillors were very upset about the possibility of such action. The councillor in the ward where I live—Cefn Cribwr, known by its old parish name of Tythegston Higher—said that he would be prepared to lie in the road and prevent any of the lorries coming anywhere near Stormy Down. That was Councillor Viv Thomas.

Mr. Morgan: I am happy to answer that question, while my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth finds out whether he is able to reassure the House as I asked him to.
We have been upsetting ourselves over the environmen-tal consequences of large-scale waste removal—exhumation, as it is described in the consultants' report, stray paragraphs of which have come to our notice and have enabled us to conduct a proper, well-informed debate. The report contradicts the official line—which is believed by the public in Cardiff—and removes most of the possibility of large-scale waste removal to either Mid-Glamorgan or Bedfordshire. It appears that the Welsh Office knows something that Parliament does not. I should be happy to give way to the Minister, if he wants to say more about the negotiations between Touche Ross and the Welsh Office. I have read out Touche Ross's version—that, following its informal discussions with the Welsh Office, the removal of the tip may not proceed in full. If that is true, I am very happy to hear it.

Mr. Michael: I appreciate that we are dealing with widely ranging issues, but I do not think that we should create worry where none should exist. I am told that Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire are the only options being considered by the development corporation and that rail is the only option being considered for transport to those locations. That eliminates Mid Glamorgan and road transport. Does my hon. Friend have information that contradicts that? I am sure that he agrees that on serious matters such as this we should not operate on gossip or innuendo. I have checked my memory of those matters with the promoters and what I have said knocks other suggestions on the head.

2 am

Mr. Morgan: I would be glad to be knocked on the head if it would remove from my memory a conversation with the promoters in which they said that the issue would depend on the offers from waste management contractors. I would be happy to accept the withdrawal of that statement. We have had information about secret negotiations in the Welsh Office about the tip not being moved. New clause 7 deals with the sealing of that tip if it is not moved. We are becoming bogged down in the lesser of two probabilities about the future of the Ferry road tip. There have been negotiations between Touche Ross on behalf of Cardiff city council and the Welsh Office, whose representatives remain sedentary and silent. They are probably still shell shocked by their failure on the closure motion, despite a circular letter to the Parliamentary Private Secretaries who are now safely tucked under their duvets.

Mr. Michael: I appreciate that my hon. Friend wishes to explore people's minds. I am sure that at all times he wants to explore people's approach to matters to make sure that they are right, and to look at other options. My hon. Friend, of all people, would not want anyone to close


his mind to other options. As I have said in relation to the tip's removal, the option that I mentioned is the only one that is being or has been considered. Leaching is consequent upon the issues that we are debating, and those issues are dealt with by the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is right to say that these issues are mentioned in the Bill. They are also mentioned in our new clauses. We are both pointing to the need for a solution to problems of leaching, phosphate and nitrate in the waters feeding the barrage, removal of the existing sewer outfalls and algae. Our new clauses strengthen the safeguards that my hon. Friend says are already in the Bill. The approach that my hon. Friend commends to the House does not require the promoters to show the House before it passes the Bill, or before its contents satisfy somebody else, how they intend to solve those problems.
We do not know what the promoters intend to do about the Ferry road tip. Our latest understanding, following bits of news about negotiations between Touche Ross and the Welsh Office, is that the tip is not to be removed. In that case, we need to know how it will be sealed. How do we deal with the problems covered by new clause 5 on leaching and new clause 17 on the sealing of the tip? There are two approaches to the problem, on the Welsh Office assumption that the Ferry road tip is to stay. We would like a definitive statement from the promoters or from the Welsh Office as to whether the tip is to stay or to go. I think that it will remain, but the official line is that it is to be removed. It would be useful to be able to determine the matter tonight, but if we are not told, that is 10 times more reason than we thought we had for insisting on new clauses 5 and 17 about the future of the Ferry road tip.
What will happen to the tip? If it is to stay, how are we to seal off such a large tip—in size, it is in the top 20—that is at the height of its powers of decomposition? It is a major producer of methane. It adjoins the old gasworks tip, with all the phenolics, cyanide and cyanates that are to be found in the ground deep underneath the gasworks, which produced gas by coke. The ground water surges round the old coke, which contains cyanates and phenolics. There is the decomposing tip, with all the methane and organics. It will be in contact with a much higher level of ground water following the closing off at the permanent high water level of the barrage.
We need to know before the impoundment starts how the promoters intend to solve the problem. To paraphrase the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth as reasonably as I can, he says that we should be satisfied with the undertakings that have been secured by the National Rivers Authority, Cardiff city council or Welsh Water, or by the words that appear in the Bill, even though they are far from specific about the solutions that are proposed.
Phosphate and nitrate removal could have a colossal effect on my constituents. If it is necessary to introduce phosphate and nitrate removal plants on the Taff and the Ely of the sort that are on the Rhine, where are they to be situated? Such plants are large. They could be situated at the double sewage works at Cilfynydd, one of which deals with the sewage from the Cynon and the other with the sewage from the Taff north of Pontypridd up to Merthyr. It would be possible to bolt on to the sewage works a removal plant. That would be handy, but the trouble is

that a lot of sewage comes out into the Taff through the storm sewer disposal works that are below the sewage works.
I apologise for turning my back on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I turned 180 deg while explaining these matters to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The hour is late, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I ask you to excuse me.
The Ely might just be in the vale of Glamorgan. The Miskin sewage works are the main works that cover the Taff-Ely borough, an area in which the population has exploded during the past 20 years. The works are brand new and they do a great job. Large quantities of treated sewage are discharged back into the River Ely, which passes through my constituency. During a dry summer, 50 per cent. of the water in the river comes from the sewage works, and it contains a colossal amount of nitrate and phosphate.
As I have said, it is possible to bolt on removal works to remove phosphates and nitrates that are in the sewage, but they will not deal with storm overflows, and I am told that there are about 250 in the catchment areas. Given the rainfall in south Wales, the overflows work summer and winter, which means that a great deal of sewage does not pass via the sewerage works. There is also dog excrement that is washed into the rain water sewers, which ends up in the river. That is a major source of phosphates and, to a lesser extent, nitrates. None of that will be covered by the waters of the bay unless there is a phosphate and nitrate treatment works in operation just before the water enters the lake. That is where my constituency comes on the scene.
The Rhine is taken almost completely off its production line, as it were. It is taken from its normal flow. That means carving out a new river channel, and the river, in its entirety, is passed through decomposition tanks of iron for phosphates and aluminium for nitrates, or it might be the other way round. Either way, there is a need for an iron decomposition tank and an aluminium tank to react against the phosphates and nitrates and neutralise them.
Where is that to be done in my constituency? Will part of the playing fields in the castle grounds be taken? Where are we to take the Taff from its normal stream and pass it through two tanks and then return it to its formal flow? Is there any other solution? Do we know what the solution is? Have we heard anything that amounts to a solution to the problem of phosphate and nitrate removal? Even the promoters accept that the removal may become necessary if we are to comply with the municipal waste water directives of which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd spoke so eloquently. Those concerns must be met before we can buy this pig in a poke. I do not know whether the necessary land is available, but if no solution can be found there should be no barrage. There should be no impounding until we can see how the problems that the barrage will create can be solved. If we cannot see how the problems can be solved, there should be no barrage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth believes that the NRA is aware of the problems and will set the standards. There are many committed, hard-working staff in the NRA and they will do their job. However, it is far too late for them to do their job fully in the sense of being able to bargain as equal partners with the Cardiff Bay development corporation because the NRA did not exist when objections were to be heard. The


NRA was unable to bargain and say that, unless certain solutions to problems were forthcoming, the permissions would not be granted.
Lord Crickhowell's position is also a problem. Regardless of his persuasive qualities and personal commitment to his job as chairman of the NRA, he must be conscious that he cannot be unbiased in relation to the Cardiff bay barrage. His commitment is, if possible, even greater than that of the present Secretary of State for Wales as a result of his sense of parental responsibility for the project.

Dr. Marek: Reference has been made to the land holdings of companies associated with Lord Crickhowell. Does my hon. Friend have any further information about that? That point is important and pertinent with regard to the NRA and the way in which its policies are prosecuted and whether there may be a conflict of interest between Lord Crickhowell in his capacity as the member of a company with an interest in land in the Cardiff bay barrage area and his position as chairman of the NRA.

Mr. Morgan: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has the permission of Mr. Deputy Speaker to take us down that road to investigate those inter-locking interests. The post-Cabinet, post-parliamentary appointments secured by the former Secretary of State for Wales have left him in an extremely difficult position with regard to the Cardiff bay barrage.

Dr. Marek: I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would rule my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West out of order if he were to stray out of order. However, I hope that he will be in order because we are discussing new clauses that are principally concerned with the cleanliness of water, and that is an essential function of the NRA. Subject to the view of Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West would be in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had enough discussion about how I might hypothetically rule in certain hypothetical circumstances. If the debate relates to new clause 5, it will be in order.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. His point is pertinent because it relates to the former Secretary of State for Wales who is now the chairman of the NRA, director of Associated British Ports Holdings and of HTV and several other companies. The former Secretary of State for Wales is Captain Clean-up. He is supposed to be like Caesar's wife —or was it Lot's wife?—and be above suspicion when it comes to pollution.
Captain Clean-up must be in the van of leading the fight to eradicate water pollution. However, in the other place, Lord Crickhowell adopted a position that I could not follow. As chairman of the NRA and as an interested member of the other place, he knocked six bells out of the Usk barrage, saying that the NRA takes a strong view about such barriers because it is not satisfied about the fish bars or about the conservation of the aquatic flora and

fauna, and he said that there was no way in which he could sleep tight in bed if he allowed the proposal to go through when it seems so thoroughly dangerous and pernicious.
The position in this case is completely different. The National Rivers Authority did not exist at that time. Its chairman is known to be the progenitor of the scheme. Standing on Penarth head one day with a local architect, he thought to himself, "Wouldn't it be nice to have a barrage between Penarth head and Queen Alexandra dock gate? What a wonderful lake it would make." When politicians near the end of their careers, they like to leave behind a memorial to their period in office. The Secretary of State for Wales did not want his eight years in that job simply to appear as a footnote in the history books. He wanted to create something big so that people would say, "That was Lord Crickhowell's—Captain Clean-up's—idea."
2.15 am
That creates a credibility problem when the person who favours the Cardiff Bay barrage knocks six bells out of the Usk barrage. That was not his idea. However, Lord Crickhowell is now chairman of the NRA; that is his primary responsibility. The NRA has the power, given by legislation, formally to object. It is a separate body, but that was not the case at the last date when objections could be lodged against the Bill.

Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend is pursuing an interesting line of inquiry concerning the attitude of the NRA's chairman to the inland lake that the barrage would create in Cardiff, compared with his attitude to the proposal for a barrage across the River Usk. He suggests that part of the problem is that the NRA did not exist when objections to the Cardiff Bay barrage had to be lodged. That may be the most important point. Might it not be that the former Secretary of State for Wales took the title Lord Crickhowell because Crickhowell is on the banks of the River Usk?

Mr. Morgan: I understand that he did not take the title Lord Pembroke because he wanted to leave that title to the present Member of Parliament for Pembroke after he loses his seat at the next election. However, I shudder to think what quango may be found for him to chair if the widely forecast change of Government takes place, involving the loss of his seat. Lord Crickhowell is associated with the Usk valley where he had a house. However, it is a speculative point, and I intend to confine myself to the facts.
Welsh Water was in effect the predecessor of the National Rivers Authority, which came into being six weeks too late to object to the Bill. Welsh Water had no duty to conserve aquatic flora and fauna, but its successor body, the National Rivers Authority, has. Before 1 September 1988, the only body that had a duty to conserve aquatic flora and fauna was the Nature Conservancy Council. As might have been expected, it objected to the Bill. Had the NRA been in existence on 26 July 1988, it, too, would have objected. The view of the NRA's council for Wales staff is that it would have felt obliged to object on the ground that it had a duty to conserve aquatic flora and fauna, a duty that its predecessor body did not have. It is one of those accidents, but the House could remedy it by accepting some of these amendments.

Mr. Rogers: If my hon. Friend had not been in order, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have stopped him. He attributed motives to Lord Crickhowell, a former Secretary of State—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was about to reproach the hon. Gentleman when he moved away from that point. I hope that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will not now tempt me to make the reproach that I was about to make then. Perhaps we should get back to the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have left the question of Lord Crickhowell.

Mr. Rogers: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to refer directly to new clause 6, which says:
the undertakers and water company shall produce and publish a plan".
When the previous Secretary of State for Wales granted permission, that requirement did not exist. The then Secretary of State is now a very substantial director of Associated British Ports, which owns 160 acres in the Cardiff bay area. One could not attribute to him a desire to have a statue erected, but he seems to have taken advantage of the revolving door—moving out of Government and into one of the companies that he helped. This kind of thing happens all the time. All Opposition Members criticise Conservative Members for it. We have seen it in the case of British Aerospace. I do not think that the previous Secretary of State for Wales is any better than the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rogers: I have finished.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend has raised a point that tangentially—

Mr. Win Griffiths: "Tangenitally".

Mr. Morgan: I do not think that that version is at all suitable.
Nothing that I have said should have given my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), or any other hon. Member, the impression that I approve of the arrangement by which Lord Crickhowell, immediately on ceasing to be a member of the Cabinet, became chairman of the National Rivers Authority and a director of Associated British Ports. From the point of view of the unbiased treatment of this Bill, that is regrettable. It is bound to lead to a problem of perception, even if there is no conflict of interests. We have to accept that there is a problem and that Parliament must try to satisfy people who are worried about water-pollution-related issues. At the time in question, the NRA did not exist, and since then the person widely regarded as the father of the barrage has become chairman of that authority and a director of Associated British Ports.
Some of the amendments that were not selected dealt with this matter. We tried to clean up the act in relation to the barrage and ex-Ministers. We tried to do likewise in the case of British Telecom, but our amendments were not called. A former Secretary of State is a director of British Gas, but again our amendments were not selected. And the

same applies to Associated British Ports. No doubt the very judicious decision of the authorities of the House to ensure that such amendments were not called has been proved right by the fact that, today, we have not needed to devote very much time to the activities of former members of the Cabinet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please return to the new clauses that are before the House?

Mr. Morgan: Mention has been made of the fact that, when a barrage is built, the inter-tidal movement is broken up. There is fresh water on one side and salt water on the other, but there is no partially saline water between. That partially saline water may seem of little importance to hon. Members, but it is incredibly important as a flushing mechanism. It is called the kidneys of the system because it moves in and out vigorously in areas with high tidal ranges such as the upper Bristol channel. It acts extremely effectively, although not in accord with modern practice, as the kidneys of urban industrial south Wales and Bristol.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I agree that the tidal range in the Severn estuary helps to flush out many of the harmful pollutants, but we must remember that there is much pollution to be treated and that that flushing process does not make those waters safe.

Mr. Morgan: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. It was almost a Pavlovian reaction, which I expected as I am aware of his passionate commitment to clean beaches and a clean marine environment. That is a further responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. He took some unjustified and fearful hammerings from Welsh Water but has been proved right. Welsh Water said that EC directives would be unnecessary for the treatment of sewage discharges near public bathing beaches. It said that they did no harm, that it had the right means of dealing with long sea outfalls and that other pollutants would be dealt with by the vigorous action of the Bristol channel.
No hon. Member has mentioned new clause 8—unless I missed it while I was having a cup of tea.

Mr. Ron Davies: What was in the tea?

Mr. Morgan: I have mentioned the problems with London drinking water, which passes through three kidneys before it reaches the taps.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Seven.

Mr. Morgan: I did not realise that an expert on kidneys was present.
New clause 8, which has received less attention than the other four new clauses, relates to sewage outfalls. In the same spirit of the other four new clauses, it says:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls discharging directly into the inland bay"—
that is partly dealt with by the Bill—
or into the waters of the rivers discharging into the Bay"—
that is not dealt with by the Bill, but it was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd—
or the tributaries thereof, showing the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement"—
that phrase recurs time and again in the promoters' version of the Bill, which we have improved—
and the agreement of the owner of each outfall to such removal, relocation or improvement"—


another phrase borrowed from a standard clause that recurs in the handiwork of the promoters and their parliamentary agents.
The importance of our additions are twofold. First, we tried not only to make specific the obligations on the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water for water treatment, sewage removal or treatment but to say to the promoters, "Before you impound the barrage you must be able to show how you will do the job." We insisted on that because they have not dealt with storm sewer overflows or with what will happen when the 14 direct sewers are diverted so that they do not discharge into the lake. Where will they discharge into? The Bristol channel. Is that an improvement? It is a bit of an improvement. Obviously they could not discharge into the lake and we do not want them discharging, as now, into very enclosed tidal waters where, because of increasing population pressures, they discharge more and more on the incoming tide, washing raw sewage up the rivers Taff and Ely into the town centre, and then back down again on the outgoing tide. That did not happen in the old days when the population pressure was right. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth would agree that they should be got rid of, but diverting them round the corner into the Bristol channel is not the right solution. That is why we have proposed an improvement.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to mislead the House. I am glad that he has welcomed the diversion of those sewers from Cardiff bay. It is only the introduction of the barrage under the Bill that gives that promise. He suggested that the sewers are merely to be diverted round the corner into the Bristol channel. Will he acknowledge that, due to considerable pressure exerted by my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and myself, we are to have treatment at the Lavernock works, to which the sewers will be diverted, to meet European standards—an issue on which my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), along with other hon. Members, have fought over a considerable period? I take the point about the fear that he was expressing, but that has been dealt with by assurances given by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Does my hon. Friend also accept that the diversion of sewer outfalls upstream must be a matter for the water authority and the National Rivers Authority to resolve? I agree with him that there should be an onus on the Government to improve water quality in the rivers. We would all unite on that, but it is too onerous a responsibility to cover in the Bill. It is a matter for more general legislation because such a clean-up is required not as a consequence of the Bill but as part of the improvement of water quality of rivers generally.

Mr. Morgan: I am happy to give my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) maximum credit. They worked together to get assurances about the Lavernock outfall and got an improvement on the original intention when we discussed the matter on Second Reading.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth would be happy to concede that the key

point is the interpretation of the relevant EEC municipal waste water directives. We are all aware that while legislation may be encouraging, the actual experience of walking along our river banks shows that conditions do not always improve according to the legislation. The National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water will say that they have done their best and have spent a lot of money, but that consumers would not pay for more improve-ments. Unless there is compulsion, the authorities do not always do what is required.
Ten years ago, when one walked along the banks of the River Ely in my constituency there was no smell of sewage because there was no discharge of sewage from the Cowslip and Cogan outfalls on the rising tide and the sewage was not carried inland. As more houses were built in the area, sewage had to be discharged at all times when the outfall was covered by water. Then the sewage was carried upstream first and downstream later. As soon as the tide goes down, the banks are hideously ill-smelling. Those are the sort of practical problems. Does the public believe that the job will be done as it is supposed to be in this optimistic legislation? The public want us to try to enforce that lesson by introducing greater compulsion.

Mr. Michael: I do not want to take up the time of the House by correcting the odd description that my hon. Friend gave of the results of the Cowslip estate. There are certainly problems there, but they will be helped by the measures resulting from the barrage. My hon. Friend said that it was not enough to have things in legislation or regulation. The fact that EC directives have contained rules has not necessarily brought about the results that we would require—that is certainly true.
The diverted sewers from the Cardiff bay area will feed into Lavernock and, as a result of the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment at the last year's North sea conference, a firm undertaking was given with regard to treatment at future outfalls around the coast of Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan and I exerted pressure to try to ensure that that undertaking should apply to the Lavernock outfall and should not be regarded, as the Government then appeared to intend, as something for which permission had already been given. We received an absolute promise from the Secretary of State for the Environment that it would be a treated outfall and would fall within the terms of the undertaking given at the North sea conference.

Mr. Morgan: I accept everything that my hon. Friend has said. The only difference between us relates to the form of treatment that would need to be given. My interpretation of the EC directive on municipal waste water is that it could very well compel Welsh Water and the National Rivers Authority to come to an arrangement whereby third-stage treatment—phosphate and nitrate removal—would have to be carried out at Lavernock or any other sea outfall taking municipal waste water.
The undertaking that my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Vale of Glamorgan got from the Secretary of State was that secondary treatment, which does not include phosphate and nitrate removal, would be carried out. That involves biological reaction, oxygenation and the usual treatments that take place in most British sewage works. But my reading of the EC directive is that the Lavernock sea outfall would be regarded as discharging into a sensitive district because


there are so many bathing beaches there—it is almost one continuous bathing beach from Lavernock point to Barry island. It is not one of the great resorts of Great Britain, but is a popular resort, which would make it a sensitive water. In addition, the outfall discharges from a population of more than 10,000 people, in terms of coastal discharges, and 2,000 people, in terms of inland population—for which Cardiff, Penarth, Dinas Powys and Barry certainly qualify.
If the outfall requires third-stage treatment, we need an undertaking from the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales that goes beyond the undertaking that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has received. That is the only difference between us. I am happy with the undertaking that he has received so far as it goes, but the very fact that there is a difference of opinion between our interpretation of the EC directive reinforces the reason for the new clauses.
If, as we state in new clause 8, those sewers must be diverted and treated up to the EC standards that will exist in 1995 when the barrage will open for business, and third-stage treatment is required, there is still no undertaking to cover that. That is my understanding of the Secretaries of State's undertaking to my hon. Friends for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Vale of Glamorgan. The undertaking covers only secondary treatment, but I think that the EC directive means that there will have to be full tertiary River Rhine-type treatment, including phosphate and nitrate removal. That is why we argue that the Bill must be specific—the matter cannot be left to the interpretation of the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water. Those organisations may say, "Who really needs it, you only need that sort of thing on the Rhine. We do not want to mess around with that—it is much too expensive."

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene at last, although I realise that he was pursuing an important argument regarding the intervention by our hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Micheal). During his discourse, before the original intervention when we both tried to intervene, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) was making a case about the cost to consumers of all the remedial works which were necessary to deal with this pollution. I merely want to confirm that the chairman of the former Welsh water authority and the current chairman of its successor, the privatised Welsh Water company, Mr. John Jones, is a constituent of mine. Whenever we meet he never fails to remind me that the cleaning up of our act as regards water quality is an expensive business. I therefore stress what my hon. Friend is saying, as that argument needs to be emphasised and to be considered in relation to the incredible extra costs that will be involved in keeping the water in the lagoon behind the barrage to a reasonable standard, if that can be successfully achieved over a long period of time.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend used the phrase "cleaning up our act" and that is a good description of the set of clauses that we are debating because it is precisely what we are trying to do. I use the word "our" as though we were among the sponsors, which we are not. We are mainly Members of Parliament representing south Wales, who are especially interested in the Bill. I include my hon. Friend the Member for

Wrexham as an honorary south Walian, which I am sure he will be pleased about, although I do not know whether his constituents would.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend mentioned the attitude of people such as the chairman of Welsh Water, who say that the consumer will never pay for that sort of treatment. They say that if there can be a conspiracy between consumers worried about the size of their water and sewerage bills, and the Government, who do not want the retail prices index to shoot up again to 8·9 per cent. or whatever and therefore say, "Keep water charges down", a conspiracy to keep the EC out of our water affairs, then so much the better. Our standards will be lower than those of the Germans and the Dutch, but what the hell. We British are a pretty dirty nation, especially we people in south Wales—we live among tips and so forth. People like the chairman of Welsh Water will say that if we can possibly get away with a minimalist approach, let us get away with it, as we have done for years.
I can remember meetings that I attended, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, with the old Welsh Water—when it included the Welsh responsibilities of the present National Rivers Authority—where the question was asked, "Who needs any kind of treatment in coastal waters?" Five or six years ago there were long sea outfalls and it was said that the vigour of the British channel, the world's greatest natural flush lavatory, with 5 cu km of salt water roaring up the channel and back down again, dispersed the waste. The fact that it undispersed it and brought it back on the next tide did not seem to occur to Welsh Water, but eventually it had to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. However, one can see from his description that that same minimalist attitude still remains, and that is why new clause 8 is necessary to ensure that the promoters are firmly pinned down before impoundment takes place to decide whether these are sensitive waters. If they are, how do the promoters propose to comply with the municipal waste water treatment requirements for tertiary—that is full—treatment? That means that one is able to drink the water when it comes out of the sewage treatment works; it does not contain eutrophicating surplus nutrients for algae, have biological consequences for our beaches, or contain the alleged super-germs, which have driven tourists away from all the beaches in the upper Bristol channel once it became known that they were there.

Dr. Marek: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, will he say a little more about the River Rhine and consider whether what happens there would be effective in the Cardiff bay area? Where are the settlement tanks on the Rhine? How much do they cost? How effective are they? Could such treatment be used on the Taff?

Mr. Morgan: That intervention is pertinent to new clause 6 on phosphate and nitrate stripping. People were panic stricken about the state of the Rhine. Since the introduction of the Bill and the inception of the NRA, I know that the NRA has sent people to the Rhine to see the phosphate treatment works. I do not think that there is one in this country yet. Nobody has yet attempted to apply the higher standards in this country. As the only place where such works can be seen in action is on the Rhine, the NRA went over to see it. It has made a ballpark estimate


of how much one would cost, as per the terms of new clause 6. The NRA is not unconscious of the EEC's possible requirement and of the duties that would then fall on the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to comply with any directives because national authorities have to comply with EEC directives and are fined by the European Commission and Court of Justice if they do not.
The NRA popped over to have a look at the many phosphate-stripping works on the Rhine, all of which have been built in the past 10 years, totally transforming the Rhine—except when there is a nasty big chemical spill in Switzerland. The NRA has tried to apply that to the phosphate and nitrate problem on the Taff from the Cilfynydd sewage works and to the problem on the Ely at Miskin, the Taff and Ely being the two rivers that discharge into the bay that we are talking about converting into a lake. It was thought that it would cost about £50 million to apply phosphate stripping at the points where the Taff and the Ely enter the lake. Although one cannot cover money in such a Bill, that is the money side.
Much more important, however—as is evident from the way in which we have worded new clause 6 on phosphate and nitrate stripping—is the location of the settlement tanks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham mentioned in the earlier part of his intervention. That issue raises the question whether one has the necessary land or the compulsory purchase powers to acquire the land that would be required to take the Taff and Ely out of their courses, through iron and aluminium deposition tanks, and bring them back on to their natural courses so that they can discharge into the lake. There are no powers under the Bill for the compulsory acquisition of the land needed to bring the Taff and the Ely off-line and back on-line via the iron and aluminium tanks which are the only effective method of phosphate stripping. The treatment could take place at the sewage works, but that would miss out all the storm sewer overflows, or SSOs, which are a colossal localised problem in south Wales where there are hundreds of such overflows.
If hon. Members do not know what an SSO is, there is a superb example on Lambeth bridge. Those of us who live in Kennington can see it when we walk home at night. There is not a big SSO problem in London, which does not get the variations in rainfall encountered in south Wales, where the valley formation and large numbers of people living in enclosed valley communities mean that when the river rises—after rain, it might rise as much as 6 inches in a few hours—after a heavy rainstorm in south Wales, the rivers Rhondda, Cynon, upper Taff and Ely all rise rapidly and the SSOs discharge sewage because that is preferable to sewage being discharged upwards through people's toilets, flooding their kitchens and bathrooms. That problem is local to south Wales, which is why it is important to put it on the record now. It is relevant to the question of how to remove phosphates and nitrates, and to the issue of acquiring the land to take the Taff and the Ely off-course so that the water can be put through the tanks. Without the necessary powers, one is leaving oneself open to the classic Welsh Water and NRA response in Wales —that people in Wales do not really want that sort of thing, that they cannot afford it and would not pay for it, so why should our standards be as high as Germany's? We

should be in the lead on public standards, not always having to catch up with what the Germans were doing on the Rhine five years ago.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is relevant because I am extremely concerned about the nitrate and phosphate stripping of the rivers and I do not know where the nitrate and phosphate-stripping works would be located. I have asked several times whether they would be located in Sophia Gardens, next to Glamorgan county cricket club. Is that where they envisage putting the giant third-stage treatment works? If it does not go there, where else could it go? It must go into public playing fields somewhere, which are covered by covenants. If new clause 6 is not accepted, the promoters will not be under any compulsion to show where they would put the works. The same applies to new clause 8 on the sewer diversions. If the sewer diversion powers were applied, the sewage was taken out to Lavernock and secondary treatment was provided, that would be fair enough. We know that that could be done. It would not involve a lot of land.
I interpret the EEC municipal waste water directive as requiring third-stage treatment. That puts the promoters in serious trouble. Where in the Lavernock area could it be sited? Would it involve reviving the old plants for the Cog Moors sewage works near Dinas Powys where my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and I used to live? It is a fine village. In the geography textbooks it is called the largest village in Wales. Between there and the north-eastern suburbs of Barry there was to be a large sewage treatment works. That was about 20 years ago. There was a big campaign against the works in Dinas Powys. People did not want a sewage treatment works, but they accepted it in the end. However, Welsh Water decided not to build it. It said that it did not need it and that long sea outfalls would do the trick.
Now Welsh Water is seeking to build sewage treatment works again. It always tries to get away with a minimalist approach by saying that people in Wales do not want to afford sewage treatment, do not really need it and that the channel is always there. The easy way out is to bung the sewage in the sea. Now everyone has had to wake up to the fact that bunging sewage in the sea drives away tourists and leaves one open to legal challenge from the EEC. Under pressure from Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, local Members of Parliament and members of the public who are anxious about their environment, Ministers have had to give undertakings.
Parents will not take young children to swim at St. Mary's Well bay, Penarth or other places where I took my children to swim in the belief that the salt killed all the germs. People no longer take that attitude. They want to know whether a beach has the EEC blue flag award. That can be achieved only if promoters of measures such as this are tied down to proving that they can meet the standards. The new clause would tie them down and if they could not show to the satisfaction of the authorities how they intended to meet the standards of waste water treatment that will apply when the barrage opens for business through to 2005 or 2015—that is as far as legislators can reasonably look ahead, to our retirement—they could not build the barrage. It would be a dereliction of our duty to allow them to do so. Unless we do that, we cannot bring about the improvements that are required.
We must be able to show that we are giving sewage treatment the priority that it deserves, that the south Wales tourist industry deserves and that the local public who want to teach their children to swim deserve.
We cannot always foresee exactly how an environmen-tal problem will turn out. One of the latest problems that has emerged is generation of methane by tips, which was not foreseen. That is referred to in the new clause that deals with the Ferry road tip. That tip is a major generator of methane. The Ferry road tip is the direct subject matter of new clause 17 and the indirect subject matter of new clause 5. It is the biggest tip in Wales and one of the biggest in Britain. It contains 2 million cu m of waste. We were told by the promoters last year, when they proposed to acquire the tip for the purposes of removing it to Bedford, that it contained 3 million cu m, but we are now told that a more accurate measurement is 2 million cu m. We are happy to accept that downgrading, but it is still a very big tip.
The tip is at the peak of its methane-generating capabilities. It is at the height of its decomposition now because the average life of the black bags buried under the top soil is about 10 years. The tip has been open for business since 1972 and is still going strong. It has another seven or eight years of life, if use of it does not stop by Cardiff Bay development corporation acquiring it
The interesting point about the methane is that no one realised until two or three years ago how serious a problem methane generation from tips was. We now know that it is a serious problem. Methane can migrate several hundred metres underground before it suddenly shoots up to the surface where it can he lit by a spark. It can get inside a house. That happened in Derbyshire last year or two years ago. Bells were set off everywhere. There was a major report.
Methane from tips such as that at Ferry road is a major problem which has just crept up on legislators such as ourselves and the regulatory authorities to which we vote money every year. We never realised how important it was. Giant tips generate a lot of methane and Ferry road tip will presumably be a major source of methane.
Cardiff city council is a forward-looking authority which has bought its own gas-testing rig. One result of Cardiff's being good at its job is that when the Department of the Environment collected statistics on the generation of methane from sites—they were published in the newspapers about two weeks ago—Cardiff was shown to have more notifiable sites generating methane above a certain level than any other city. I cannot remember whether Cardiff had 17 and London 19, or the other way round. That does not mean that the sites in Cardiff generate as much methane as those in London. It merely means that the authorities in Cardiff have been doing their job properly and have actively tried to discover where the methane is being generated at old tips, at today's tips and at places which are not even tips but where there is organic material under the soil, and they have found that there are 17 or 19 notifiable sites. That puts it roughly on a par with London, which is 20 times as big. If London had a gas-detection rig, I am sure that it would have 20 times as many methane-generating sites as Cardiff.
Ferry road tip is easily Cardiff's biggest waste disposal site and new clause 17 proposes that it should have major treatment. On the assumption that it is not moved but left in situ, we want to know how it is to be treated.
But there is an even bigger problem about the Ferry road tip. New clause 17 specifies that a measure of sealing must be carried out there before impoundment. We have emphasised that because the Ferry road tip is crucial to the Ferry road side of the barrage—in other words, the western edge of the barrage.
As we have heard dozens of times during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament, the purpose of the barrage is to create a lake which will assist in regenerating the area by producing land for development worth many millions of pounds per acre rather than £500,000 per acre, because it will be a classier environment. That is a lovely theory, but the problem is the geography of the lake.
Development on the east side of the lake near the docks is proceeding anyway. Running from the Queen Alexander dock entrance to the pierhead building, the property development subsidiary of Associated British Ports has said that it is proceeding with the first phase of its £160 million development on its 160 acres regardless of the barrage. It hopes to start in October.
It is only the area near the Ferry road tip on the west side of the barrage that the barrage can possibly make any difference to. That is why, after Second Reading 18 months ago, it was said that the Ferry road tip would be moved to Bedfordshire and fresh top soil brought in so that the land could be used for houses, business parks, offices and so on. There were lovely models of that. That would be the pay-off from the barrage. The barrage makes no difference to the east side near the docks, but it does make a difference to the area near the Ferry road tip.
We are now confronted with the revelations from the Touche Ross report and the discussions between its consultants and the Welsh Office. I note that the junior Minister is writing furiously—no doubt he is evaluating his response to my speech. It is now clear that the Ferry road tip will not be removed, so how does one develop the west side of the barrage?
3 am
Is a high-class property development envisaged near a tip that will be generating methane? That tip must be sealed and the methane extracted from it. We have set out in new clause 17 what should happen to the Ferry road tip. It should be treated, sealed and then converted for the most appropriate low-density land use as a former municipal tip. As in the past, it could be developed as a playing field and, eventually, after 50 years, when the tip is inert and no more methane is being generated, it could be converted for a more high-class use.
At present it is impossible to envisage the exhumation of that tip, its wholesale excavation or the outlandish transportation of it in cross-country trains full of stinking, half-decomposed refuse. The tip should be treated to make it more environmentally acceptable. That means that one must accept that the site can no longer form the centrepiece of a high-class, yuppie development of office blocks. One will not get mega-valuable property development on the land around the Ferry road tip.
If the tip remains, it must be converted for playing field use and similar low-density development, with industrial development around it. That would be acceptable, sensible and safe so long as the tip is made safe as a result of methane extraction and sealing. If one accepts that, one must accept that there is no economic case for the barrage.
The sole purpose of the barrage has been to generate high-class property development around the Ferry road tip. If the tip remains, however, sensible, safe development will occur if we accept the strictures of new clause 17. One should not imagine that it is possible to remove the problem from Cardiff to Bedford.
Sludge dumping at sea is covered by the sewage diversion proposal in new clause 8 and by new clause 19. We have had a lengthy, scientific, erudite deposition on algae scum from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and I shall not repeat what he said. He is right to suggest that algae represent a great problem. They are recognised as such on page 36 of the Bill which already specifies the removal of algae growths as a duty to be laid on the undertakers.
Algae growths are a problem in dry summers such as those that we had in 1976, 1981, 1989 and 1990. In general, however, we have an exceptionally dry summer every five years. In those years the entire country is subject to drought and that causes huge algae blooms. When that happens, the oxygen levels crash. Algae require oxygen at the breeding stage; without it they die and decay anaerobically at the bottom of the water. A major fish kill will then result. At one time, it was envisaged that there would be a large coarse fishery in the bay. We are still not absolutely clear whether the promoters still envisage a coarse fishery. One new clause that I tabled, but which has not been selected, stipulated that they must include a coarse fishery. It would be a crying shame if the requisite water quality standards could not be achieved. I am sure that the promoters will want to inform the general public in Cardiff what they are to expect and whether there will be a coarse fishery. After all—and we shall return to this subject on the midges amendment—without a coarse fishery, how will one control the midges? Coarse fish eat colossal quantities of midges and we are informed that there will be 11 billion midges—not in the middle of the lake but above the shallows and around the edges, nearer to where people will be walking.
The problem with algae is that they may crash and cause a major fish kill—if we have any fish—every five years when there is a summer drought. To prevent that from happening, one has to step in and hoover them out. A harvesting machine must be developed to pull the algae out of the water before they reach the blooming stage and cause a crash. In a drought, just the right conditions may be created. The sunlight, the temperature of the water, the nutrients coming in from sewage disposal and so on may all be ideal.
The promoters must tell us what they intend to do to avert the problem of algae. If they accept what most scientists accept—that every five years, when there is a drought, there will be an uncontrollable problem—they must accept, too, that that will mean a major stink in the lake. The lake may have to be drained. All the fish in it will have died and will have to be fished out. We may be talking about millions of coarse fish—which will then have to be taken out and burnt—in addition to the algal scum, which will also have to be disposed of. It cannot be dumped at sea. There is no question of sewage sludge including algal scum being shoved out by way of diverted sewer pipes via the Lavernock outfall. In 1995, that will not be allowed. There will be no method of handling huge quantities of algal scum, and that will result in major fish kills and major problems in the drought summers that we must expect every five years.
We want to tie the promoters down now. We want them to make proposals regarding the treatment of the algal blooms and scum mentioned on page 36 of the Bill. We have not invented the subject. We want to see the colour of the promoters' money before we give them permission to impound. How do they propose to solve the problem? At the moment, the only solution that we are offered is a load of waffle—a promise that the National Rivers Authority will extract from the promoters an assurance that they will solve the problem. But the distinguished specialist scientists are saying that they do not yet have a solution. We say, "If the scientists say that there is not a solution to the problem, we must leave an obligation on the promoters to find a solution or accept that they cannot build a barrage." We cannot allow them to build a barrage on trust, knowing of the kind of problems that they themselves admit will arise. The highly eutrophic waters will give rise in drought summers not just to the early-season cladophera-type algae that we see every year in Cardiff but to the later microcystis and to the other nasties that caused the deaths on Rutland Water. Every five years, in drought conditions, we would have a proliferation of blue-greens and therefore oxygen crashes and consequent fish kills. We should then have to face the problem of draining the lake and scraping out and burning dead fish bodies.
The current ministerial sales line, and the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who has moved to the Front Bench, is, "Trust the authorities to extract the right undertakings and to establish the correct and acceptable modus operandi with the promoters." We say that if the promoters cannot show us what that modus operandi will be, we do not think that the barrage should be built. We therefore urge that a permission to impound shall be dependent on the achievement of a specific modus operandi acceptable to the scientists working in the regulatory bodies. We want that informaion to be produced and published with no hole-in-corner negotiations going on between the Welsh Office and consultants behind the backs of the people of Cardiff and their democratic representatives and about which we know nothing—unless, that is, we are lucky enough to acquire odd parts of the consultants' reports. That is not good enough. We want to be specific. We want the promoters to produce and publish a plan that shows exactly how they propose to solve the problem of leachates seeping out of the Ferry road tip and of the sealing off of that tip.
We have not heard yet, but it is obvious that the promoters are worried about the sealing, or they would never have suggested removing the tip wholesale as a sine qua non of any subsequent property development. We think that they are probably coming round to the view that it cannot be moved—in which case they should accept new clause 17, and recognise that it should be treated and sealed. That would be a step towards an acceptable compromise between the promoters and those who feel that the problems have not been solved in relation to the five big issues—leachate, phosphate and nitrate stripping, sewage removal, the sealing of the Ferry road tip and the disposal of algal growth arising from surplus nutrients, which itself arises from the insoluble problems posed by the 250 or so storm sewer overflows in the rivers feeding the man-made lake and their tributaries.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said that it was putting the cart before the horse for the


sponsors to seek permission for the building of the barrage before solving the problems. I think that I have found the solution. The only time that the cart is put before the horse is when the horse is suffering from galloping gastric dysentery. In those circumstances, in front of the horse is the only place for the cart to be.
The south Wales river system is not yet in a position to avoid galloping gastric dysentery—and with the 250 storm sewer overflows it may never be. The barrage should not be built until a solution is proposed. It has been suggested—my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) heard it, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also mentioned it —that, given its considerable Government backing, if we accept the package the Government will feel obliged to put their hands in their pockets and give a lot of money to Welsh Water, the National Rivers Authority or the barrage. The barrage must have first-class conditions. Never mind what happens to investment programmes elsewhere in Wales; the Treasury must cough up for the barrage—although it may not cough up for many other purposes, such as hospitals.
The Government's sales pitch is "Have a barrage—you may not want it, but we are telling you that it is good for you." We ask, "What will you give us with the barrage? Will you improve the sewerage system?" They say, "Sure —if you are willing to accept the barrage, we will certainly give you money for your sewage disposal system." In the first place, that could not be called honest dealing with the public in south Wales. If our sewerage needs improvement, it should have it.
No improvement of the storm sewer overflows is being offered. People say, "Surely there is a technique. If there are 250 such overflows in the valleys—in the tributaries of the Taff and Ely, and in the rivers themselves, which feed the lake—there must be a solution." I have not heard of one. In the 1970s, a huge investment was devoted to solving the storm sewer overflow problem on the Tyne, the Wear and the Mersey. Those areas were in a way similar they housed the first wave of the industrial revolution, and contain the old sewerage systems. Anyone who walked along the banks of the Tyne in the 1960s and 1970s will remember that in the middle of Newcastle the river stank, due to storm sewer overflows.
I believe that £100 million was invested. That was heavy bread back in 1971, when the Secretary of State for Wales of 1987–89 was Secretary of State for the Environment in the Government led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He authorised the Mersey and the Tyne to have complete new sewerage systems, which included new rainwater sewers about 10 ft wide running alongside the Mersey, the Tyne and Wear. The purpose was to catch all the surplus rainwater to prevent the rivers from always being full of sewage after heavy rain.
As far as I know it is impossible to do that in south Wales. A new rainwater sewer parallel to the Taff and comparable to the system alongside the Tyne and the Mersey to solve storm sewer overflow problems would leave no room for the houses in the valleys. It would be above the road and the houses would dominate the environment. That is because the Mersey, Tyne and. Wear do not have catchment areas with rainfall similar to that in south Wales. Rain in south Wales discharges immediately into the rivers in the 19 valleys.
3.15 am
I am sure that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is aware of the level of rainfall on the plateau of the south Wales coalfield from which rivers would discharge into this lake. There are 90 to 100 inches of rain a year there, which is greatly in excess of the rainfall in the catchment areas of the Mersey, Tyne and Wear. The problem is made worse by deforestation because wood was needed for pit props or battle ships. That led to the loss of soil on the valley sides and there are bare sandstone faces on many of the valleys which feed the tributaries. Rainwater on the plateau gushes down the bare sandstone faces. There is no soil to absorb it and it is not taken up by the roots of trees because there are no trees. The water reaches the rivers within an hour. The river rises fast and the pressure on the rainwater sewers is such that if sewage was not discharged into them, it would enter the houses.
A rainwater gutter system similar to that on the Mersey, Tyne and Wear to take surplus water after heavy rain would need to be 10 to 20 ft high and would obliterate the landscape. It is physically out of the question. Municipal engineers who are experts in that field say that such a solution would totally obliterate the living environment of the valleys.

Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend is in full flood on this issue. He is discussing the possible adoption of the scheme that was introduced on the Tyne and the Mersey in the early 1970s. Is there any solution to the storm drain problem? If there is not, what will happen in the valleys?

Mr. Morgan: Modest improvements could be made to the storm sewer overflows. The filters could be cleaned and more modern valves could be fitted. There is no proposal to do that, but civil engineers are looking at the problem in south Wales and they say that we could have better storm sewer overflows. There are 250 of them and it is said that we do not know where some of them are. Many of them are private and do not belong to the National Rivers Authority or Welsh Water. Some of them are owned by small private sewerage works, and not all of them are authorised. Some have been built at isolated dwellings.
Storm sewer overflows could all be classified and equipped with modern filters and valves. That solves one problem and might catch some of the solid material, but it will not solve the problem of nutrients because small non-solid bits of material would still be washed into the rivers.
The problem occurs only during spate flows, and some people contend that that solves the problem. Such a suggestion is sometimes made about Rutland Water, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly spoke so eloquently. Everybody panicked after 10 sheep and 20 dogs—or perhaps it was 20 sheep and 10 dogs—died after lapping the water in the summer of 1989. Everyone said, "My God, what are we going to do about this?" The promoters and the regulatory authorities were asked what they intended to do to avoid a repetition of the Rutland Water incident, bearing in mind that it is admitted in the Bill that the waters are highly eutrophicated. They have not tried to deny that. They know that it means that in warm weather there is the potential for massive algae growth. They said that there was no need to worry about the Cardiff bay barrage lake because the water exchange will be so much more rapid than that which prevailed in the Rutland Water incident, where the same water had


been present for 18 months. The average exchange in Cardiff bay would take place over about five days. It was said that the storm sewer overflows would work after heavy rain, and retention in the lake would be only one or two days.
Although retention time in a man-made lake will be far less than that in a river system—it might be only five days —any enriching material that is in the water, whether solids or ground-down bits of solids that have passed through the filters, will not be discharged through the sluices, which primarily will be top sluices to suit the fish. Any material that is below the top two or three feet of water in a 30 ft barrage will not be discharged. It will be blocked when it hits the wall. It will drop to the bottom at the speed that the water drops when it hits the concrete wall. It will then be distributed at the bottom of the lake. That, basically, is what the following year's algae will eat. That is what the following year's midges will feed on. They regard enriched mud as a favourable environment. That is the sort of environment that we shall see for the foreseeable future because of the SSOs.
It is true that SSOs do not open unless there has been a heavy shower, but many of them operate frequently in the summer. There might be a thunderstorm in July or August and a massive flow of water. There may be the discharge of 50 or 100 SSOs. The day after the storm might be warm and dry. Indeed, the following week might be dry. The sewage will enter the lake and be distributed on the bottom. If there is a dry spell of about a week thereafter, conditions will be perfect for an algae bloom. It looks as though there is one in the glass of water that I have been handed, for which I am otherwise grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. I think that it is known as Passing Cloud—my original American Indian name, but that was in a previous life.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I wish that it had been Sitting Bull.

Mr. Morgan: I hope that the Hansard reporter caught that interjection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman prefers that name because Sitting Bull opposed the advance of the railway. The private Bill procedure of the United States Congress was used to advance capitalism and the eradication of the hunting grounds of the Sioux. I remember that when I was a boy I used to pronounce the name of that tribe as Siowax, not realising that French explorers had reached the lands of the Sioux before the Welsh.
Storm sewer overflows represent a real problem, and one which should not be dodged. To avoid that happening, we must incorporate in the Bill the reinforced concrete mechanism set out in new clause 8 dealing with sewer diversion, and the mechanisms that are set out in the other new clauses providing for phosphate and nitrate stripping. We say that in the absence of a reinforced concrete mechanism and without the finding of a solution, there will be no barrage and impounding will not start. As it stands, the Bill is wishy-washy. It states, in effect, "All right, use the best available technology and you should be able to obtain permission to go ahead with the project. If there are problems, people will accept that you did not know as much as should have been known at the time. We hope

that a lower standard will be accepted. After all, what could Parliament have been expected to do about this in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 when it considered the Bill?"

Mr. Win Griffiths: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West for the past hour and 55 minutes, but he has not yet referred to the fact that once the barrage is built, it will be there to stay. Given what my hon. Friend has said about unavoidable, catastrophic pollution problems, what about the cost implications and the dis-cost benefits of the barrage in view of the pollution problems?

Mr. Morgan: I am not quite sure what dis-cost benefits are. However, as I have already said, we must move on from the present position. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I agree about that. We do not accept that we can continue to use the sea and, in particular, the Bristol channel as the world's greatest flush lavatory for much longer. We accept that the sea does a great job because of the vigour of the tidal action and that it acts as the kidneys of the system in intertidal areas by its saline flushing action and its sweeping out to sea—and the sweeping in of whatever is out at sea, including pollutants. The sea acts as a good, basic "nature knows best" mechanism for correcting the worst aspects of virology, bacteriology and solids and other visually offensive sewage material.
The sea does a job, but we must adopt second and third stage treatment. If we have treatment coupled with the marine flushing action of the sea moving in and out, that is a respectable environment for the standards that we anticipate for the 21st century.
Development would then progress very much along the lines envisaged by Sam Pickstock, the chairman of Tarmac Homes, in his epic interview in Country Living. He said that he thought that the future of Cardiff did not lie with trying to make it a mediterranean playground as portrayed in those wonderful artists' impressions. Those artists were hired by the promoters to draw brilliant iridescent blue lakes with little white boats bobbing up and down on them manned by people wearing green tee-shirts, black sunglasses and red shorts. That is all very pretty, but as Sam Pickstock said, what has that got to do with south Wales or Cardiff? Cardiff is not the mediterranean. Why can we not accept the environment in which we operate? If it is a little misty, grey, brown, or whatever the appropriate pastel shade might be for the south Wales environment, why try to compare it with the mediterranean or with Baltimore?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has made a pertinent point about the image and the reality in terms of the technical problems that he so ably described to the House. With regard to the overflows from the storm sewers, I assume that there would be a build-up of organic material on the bottom of the lagoon. In the summer, the water will heat up. As it is accepted that there will be periods when the oxygen level in the lagoon would be extremely low, would not hydrogen sulphide gas be produced? Everyone knows that the smell of that gas does not fit in with the colourful mediterranean picture presented by the promoters. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Morgan: I had intended to make that important point. The promoters say that they thought of it and that


they have provided a solution, but they do not know whether it works because it has never been tried anywhere else. One of the few good features of the Bill is that it includes a specific commitment to provide 5 cu litres of dissolved oxygen per gallon of water. I do not remember the precise standard, but it is to be found in the NRA protective clauses.
During a summer drought, river flows would drop. The proportion of river flows represented by treated sewage would therefore increase, in which case eutrophication would become not just a problem but an acute problem. Highly enriched water would enter a warm, shallow lake and provide perfect conditions for the multiplication of algae. The regulatory authorities would pursue the undertakings that they had obtained from the promoters when the oxygen level looked as though it would drop below the required standard. At that point the oxygenation machines would be introduced—standard machines that one sees in all sewage works. Cardiff bay lake would then become one of the world's largest sewage works. Artificially injected oxygen would be introduced to neutralise the highly enriched treated sewage water.

Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred to the deposition of the pollutants on the bed of the lake. Might not the oxygenation process be similar to what happens in a jacuzzi? Apart from the unpleasant smell of hydrogen sulphide, would not an unpleasant scum form on top of the lake?

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He anticipates what could easily happen but what is not intended to happen. The promoters intend to get in first. When they realised, having consulted their monitoring equipment, that the oxygen level was dropping to the point where anaerobic fermentation takes place they would introduce oxygenation equipment to increase the oxygen level. Healthy bacteria, rather than anaerobic bacteria, would form the metabolic process in that enriched environment.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is not that the counsel of desperation? Large amounts of oxygen would be pumped into the lagoon. We face the same problem in the River Towy in Carmarthen. Poorly treated sewage enters the river upstream, which leads downstream to low oxygen levels in the summer and to the pumping of oxygen into the river. We have the equipment to pump oxygen into the river. Is not it similar to artificial respiration? A lagoon would be created where there could be low oxygen levels. Having created a problem, we should then have to devise a technical "fix." Would not it be much wiser not to create the problem in the first place?

Mr. Morgan: I was about to make that point. Oxygen would not be introduced for a known amenity purpose. We should have to cope with the deleterious side effects on the environment.
This is being done on the basis of the sales pitch that it is good for the environment. How are we to turn the environmental promise into reality when we know that the proposed solution to the problem of detritus is a kind of mobile boom that is supposed to collect floating bits of log and the doors that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd sees passing as he looks down on the River

Taff? What might be described as a lorry without wheels will be one of the intrusions into the lake. This machine will grab at bits of detritus. Then there will be the algae-harvesting equipment, whose purpose will be to prevent the algal blooms from getting out of hand. Those machines, too, will have to be able to get into the shallows as the algae will grow in a big way around the fringes. In terms of raised water temperature, sunlight has a much more drastic effect at the edges than in the middle, where the water may be 20 ft deep. Major algal blooms will not occur in the middle, but at the edges—in the correct conditions of nutrients and sunlight—a couple of algae could become a billion in about an hour.
In addition, there will be the oxygenation equipment. I still have a very deep scepticism about the nature of this equipment. It is reckoned that there will be fixed oxygenation points, as well as mobile points whose purpose will be to do a "fire brigade" job. Obviously, the lake will have a very variable bed. If patches of water look as though they are about to have an algal bloom, the oxygenation equipment will be rushed in on a "fire brigade" basis.
So, in the middle of a drought, in a hot August, there will be three things rushing around the lake at the same time. That, of course, is the very time at which the lake, as an amenity, should be at its most attractive. When do most people go out walking? On a fine summer evening. When do most tourists go round the world? In August. Whether what is proposed might produce an acceptable environment on a freezing February day, shortly after a furious rain storm, is hardly relevant. The question is whether it will be an amenity when most people will want such an amenity. The early artists' impressions on the basis of which this scheme was sold depicted a shimmering, blue lake with lots of little dinghies bobbing about, and the occasional person water-skiing. A fleet of mobile oxygenating machines and an algae harvesting boat sucking up algae, or cutting it away from stones, and then discharging it on to some beach or jetty provide a very different picture. People will think, "This is a pretty rum lake. What was it made for? Is that big concrete wall for the pupose of generating electricity? It certainly prevents us from seeing the winking lights of Weston-super-Mare." They will come to the conclusion that the people of Cardiff have been sold a bum deal, and that the people who thought the scheme up should have been told, after about six months of study, that while it looked nice on paper —especially when depicted by an artist in the most favourable possible light, with lots of bright colours and pretty scenes—the environmental problems would not be manageable.
From time to time, including tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has referred to the Bute East dock. He has said that the water coming into this lake will be the same as that in the Bute East dock. He has made the point that if that dock constitutes an amenity, the man-made lake resulting from this barrage will surely be an amenity. It is important to put on record the fact that there are many problems in respect of the Bute East dock. The water is drawn in from the feeder at Black Weir and flows down through the town centre. That comes from the same source—the River Taff—but there are some differences, the biggest of which is that Bute East dock is a 10 ft deep square box whereas the Cardiff bay lake would be a sloping shallow-edged lake. Most of it would be shallows, but there are no shallows in the Bute East dock,


so there is no potential for warming in sunlight. Water 1 ft or 2 ft deep provides ideal conditions for algal blooms; water 10 ft deep does not. Algae are still in Bute East dock, but not huge blooms.
In August 1989, algal blooms were worse in the feeder than in Bute East dock. Complaints to the city environmental health officer resulted in his having to warn the owners of Bute East dock—South Glamorgan county council, Tarmac plc and Cardiff city council—that they must get rid of the algae because they were clogging the feeder, which is about 4 ft deep. The algae were apparent in the dock. Employees at the county council's new headquarters, which adjoin the dock, could see that something strange was happening, but it was not a bloom; the real bloom occurred in the feeders.
Bute East dock is not as shallow as the proposed man-made lake will be, but lorryloads of algae were removed on the instructions of the city environmental health officer in order to comply with the complaints of residents of the new Tarmac housing estate, which was built with the assistance of the Welsh Office through the highest urban development grant ever given in Britain of £8 million. It is a good development, but occasionally it causes problems with eutrophication and algal blooms, of which August 1989 was a prime example.
The second difference between Bute East dock and the new man-made lake is that the dock was directly locked with the sea. As a result, it is not all fresh water but has a salt water cell at the bottom. Approximately 1 ft of pure salt water has deposited itself on the bottom of the dock because salt water is heavier than fresh water. To some extent, that would control some of the problems that would arise with the man-made lake. The promoters accept that salt water will occasionally enter the lake by accident, which is why there will be a bottom sluice to get rid of it. That has the beneficial effect of being a modest form of biological control on the worst biological problems of salt water flowing from the Taff via the feeder.
The third difference between Bute East dock and the lake is that the input can be controlled. Water from the Taff and Ely cannot be controlled, but what flows into the Bute East dock can be controlled. Flows can be cut off or increased because the feeder acts as a control. There is no control over what comes down the Taff and Ely, so Bute East dock has fewer management problems. The few problems that have been experienced act as a warning, which is why we have emphasised the need to ensure that the barrage cannot be impounded until the promoters find solutions to the problems that we have raised. The city environmental health officer has expressed great concern about the use already of Bute East dock for rowing purposes even though it is not conventional rowing where one might capsize. It is dragon racing in large galleys which are unlikely to capsize. Nevertheless, there is still potential danger from Weil's disease; although it is a rare disease, it is fatal. Therefore, the environmental health officer has asked for strict controls, but he does not have power to ban the use of the dock. He can warn the public, but he cannot ban them from using the dock.
3.45 am
The same problem occurs with salmon in the River Taff. Salmon have returned to the Taff since the sewage works at Cilfynydd were opened and they have also

returned to the River Ely since the Miskin sewage works were opened because the oxygen levels in the rivers in the summer have improved. But the National Rivers Authority warns people who catch the salmon not to eat them. I remind hon. Members that there are no trout in the Taff or in the Ely because trout are non-migratory fish which eat while they are in a river. Salmon and sea trout migrate; they are in a spawning mode when they are coming up the river and in a migrating mode when going down, and they are not interested in eating. They breathe oxygen in through the water. That can taint the flesh and pose certain problems, but they can survive because they are not eating.
I was shocked when Lord Crickhowell, on Second Reading in the other place, did not mention that. He said that the fact that salmon had returned to the Taff showed that the answer had been found to our prayers and that we now had a clean river. He forgot that we had a re-oxygenated river because of the building of the sewage works at Cilfynydd. However, that did not allow salmon to eat in the river; it meant that salmon could make a spawning run when they were already well stoked up with food from their transatlantic migration. Official advice to the public was not to eat those salmon. The River Taff and its tributaries meet the standard for salmonic fisheries because it considers only oxygen levels, but they do not reach the standard of allowing people to consume their products because of the tainting of the flesh and the carrying of virological diseases. Rivers which pass through urban areas such as Cardiff and Pontypridd are bound to have rats, and, if there are rats, there will be virological side effects.
Those are some of the environmental problems of water quality involved in the five new clauses which have been grouped together. We must nail the promoters down on them because the Bill was represented before the establishment of the National Rivers Authority. Now that it has come into being we are trying to put into the Bill what we think it would have been negotiating for had it been in existence. We see the evidence of that in what it is asking for in the Usk Barrage Bill. It is too late for the NRA to do the job on this Bill so we are trying to do it. We hope that there will be some movement later today when we complete the debate.

Dr. Marek: I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) had to say. He said it succinctly, but used such a lot of material that his speech took some time in total. He demonstrated very well the purpose of the five new clauses, which are grouped together and are all important. It is a pity that we have not yet had any comment, either from the Bill's sponsor—who has just walked back into the Chamber—or the Minister.
Reference has been made to the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Home Secretary. I shall not read it all out, but at the end of the first paragraph the Secretary of State for Wales talks about the Cardiff bay barrage. He states:
I see it as a vital component of one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects in Europe, whose completion will bring enormous economic benefits to the whole of South Wales.
One might have thought that we would have at least one word uttered from those on the Treasury Bench this evening, but we have not heard anything. In the leaked document, the Secretary of State for Wales describes the


barrage as one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects. I should have thought that a Minister would have come to the Dispatch Box to say so.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Would not my hon. Friend go even further and say that, although the Treasury Bench has been graced by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, given the release of the letter, the Secretary of State should have been here to defend the letter and comment on the fundamentally important debate that we have been having on the conditions under which we can consider the building of the barrage?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I thought that I saw the Secretary of State for Wales drifting in through the door into one of the Lobbies. At present, government is done by fiat because the Government majority is huge. There are other people to do the Government's work and sit there on the Front Bench. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but he has no doubt been told that his job is to sit there and say nothing. It is a great pity because we are debating a private Bill that will affect the lives of many tens of thousands of Welsh citizens in the Cardiff district. At this consideration stage, we should be fashioning the Bill into a better piece of legislation.
We had a Division on the closure motion on the clauses and the House decided not to close the debate. I always believe that there is a purpose in what the House does and if it decided not to close the debate, why did it do so? Its purpose must have been either that there is some sense in the clauses and they merit further debate or that the Government have lost control of the House. The Whip has clearly been put on because of the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Home Secretary. The Government have lost control of the House and are no longer able to summon 100 of their Back-Benchers or payroll vote to force the Bill through.
What are the Government doing? It is a Government Bill as I see it; the Secretary of State for Wales said that he regards it as one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects. It is not difficult to discern from that what the Government should be doing, and have been doing secretly—giving the Bill their vigorous support.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is not this a curious debate? Hon. Members decided a couple of hours ago that we needed
more debate on these clauses, yet no one from the
Government has said a word about the pollution consequences of the barrage and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who is the sponsor of the Bill, has not been in the Chamber. It is a very one-sided debate. We could keep putting forward the arguments, but no one is here to try to reply.

Dr. Marek: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We are not here merely because we want to block the Bill. Let me make my position absolutely clear; I should like to see the right form of development in that part of Cardiff, and that probably goes for many of my hon. Friends who sit on these Benches. However, we are worried about the way in which it is done.
It is treating the House with disrespect to a certain extent when the sponsor of the Bill is not here to listen to our arguments and seek to put us right or to make helpful observations, or for the Minister and other members on the Treasury Bench merely to sit there—no doubt on

instructions. They are not going to say anything publicly in the House because they have a large majority and prefer to govern in secret by writing confidential letters from one Secretary of State to another. That is not the way in which we should legislate.

Mr. Alan Williams: It is disgraceful.

Dr. Marek: I think that it is disgraceful and if the Government had any integrity they would at least talk to the sponsor of the Bill, take it away and come back with it another day, having thought about it afresh. If they will not do that, all that we can do is to continue to press our reasonable arguments to find out whether concessions can be made, the arguments find favour or are right or until the sponsor of the Bill or the Minister stands up and tells us where we are going wrong in our arguments.
There are five new clauses in this group and they are governed by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Although I raised the question earlier with one of my hon. Friends, it would help me if the sponsor of the Bill, or the Minister, could give me the present terms of reference for the Cardiff Bay development corporation and say exactly how it approached the Bill. Did it table the Bill because it wanted to make a lot of money out of it? Was it because certain landowners in the area would become extremely wealthy? That is unlikely to be the case on its own. If there was a term of reference relating to the benefit of the people of Cardiff, how strongly has that been put in the articles of association or in the setting up of the development corporation? Only after finding that out can we place some trust in what is in the Bill, and can we believe what we are told, where the Bill does not spell out the details.
All the new clauses are similar and they have rightly been grouped together. The first clause states:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.".
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke at length on that clause and made many pertinent points that I do not want to repeat. However, I do not think that he has been answered succinctly or effectively by the Minister, by other Members on the Treasury Bench, who have said nothing all evening, or by the sponsor of the Bill.
What is wrong with the undertakers producing and publishing a plan
pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate."?
The new clause does not state that all leachate must be removed, simply that proposals for the removal, relocation and improvement of such sources must be drawn up and published. It does not mean complete removal, relocation or improvement. It is a straightforward, simple and helpful new clause which, if agreed to by the sponsor or on the Government's recommendation to the sponsor that it is a helpful clause, would enable us to finish our debate on this group much earlier. New clause 5 is thus eminently sensible.
4 am
New clause 6, which is grouped with new clause 5, states:
Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.
Again, it is a helpful new clause. Although it refers to
compliance with future water quality objectives",
there is no commitment to action apart from producing and publishing a plan. The new clause relates purely to the provision of information and the undertaking of research.
We have not received a sensible reply to our request for new clause 6 to be passed and added to the Bill. The Minister could have told my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that he thought that sensible. The public—the people of Cardiff and of Wales—should know. The Minister has simply sat on the Front Bench and remained quite. Indeed, my hon. Friend is not in his place to tell me why those provisions cannot be accepted.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason why the promoters do not agree with new clause 6 is that it exposes the inadequacies of the preparation for the barrage in the Bill, which refuses to acknowledge that there are problems which, at the moment, appear difficult to solve but which, if admitted to in the Bill as drafted, would mean that the promoters would have to call a halt to these proceedings. As hon. Members have already said, it is a bit like praying that a solution to a major problem will somehow come along, provided that one keeps the momentum of the development going, and that the technical problems will be solved when it is convenient to do so. The basis of our objections, as expressed in new clause 6 and the new clauses grouped with it, is that we believe that the solutions should be clear before the development proceeds any further.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a helpful point.
What am I to think? I can only think and surmise along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. In the absence of any counter-argument, there can only be the supposition that there are serious problems over what happens to the water. Indeed, I go further and say that the development corporation is probably in this for the money. People working for the corporation are probably earning good money. The chances are that they will make their money selling the houses before the lake is full, and that when it is full, they will be away and the people who bought the houses will have to put up with all the problems. By then the employees of the corporation will have left the job or retired. They would no longer have any responsibility. That is probably too cynical a view. Certainly at this stage, I do not wish to ascribe that view to people working for the corporation. But surely it is up to the Minister—it is now the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, as Ministers seem to be taking it in shifts and to be under strict instructions not to say a word.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister is writing something.

Dr. Marek: I hope that he is writing a reply to set our minds at ease. It is up to the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to prove to the House that what I have asserted is not the case.
New clause 6 is entirely sensible. It asks for nothing other than the production and publication of a plan.
One might think that new clause 8 caused a problem and would involve the expenditure of millions of pounds. But it says:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls discharging directly into the inland bay or into the waters of the rivers discharging into the Bay or the tributaries thereof, showing the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement thereof and the agreement of the owner of each outfall to such removal, relocation or improvement.
A certain amount of action is required by the new clause. It asks first for a plan to be produced and published. No action is required in that part of the new clause. It is simply a question of doing some research, finding out the position and producing and publishing a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls. No one in the House would object to that. There cannot be anything wrong with knowing the location of the sewer outfalls which discharge into the river. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West brought out that point forcefully in his speech. He said that there are serious problems with storm sewer overflows and that they should be mapped and charted so that we know where they are. I am sure that every citizen in Cardiff would say, "Hear, hear" to that.
The first part of new clause 8 asks for a plan to be produced. The second part of new clause 8 asks the undertakers to show the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement of each outfall. Some of the SSOs or sewer outfalls may be entirely innocuous. Of course, many of them are not innocuous, so something would have to be done about them. But if a fresh water lake is to be dammed up, every citizen would think it absolutely right for the Cardiff Bay development corporation to examine each of the sewer outfalls and either remove or relocate them. At the very least, it should improve them. There is nothing whatever wrong with new clause 8. Yet we have heard nothing from the Minister. Nor, indeed, have we had a comprehensive reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.

Dr. Kim Howells: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has enjoyed a tour of the docks with the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The undertakers of the Bill make great use of the fact that there are some particularly noisome, vile sewage outfalls at present. They take one to Pier Head and point down and show a vermin run and an outfall that flows out through the old dock. They say, "How long do you want that to continue?" Then they cast their hands up across the mud flats that stretch out towards the channel and denounce all the mud flats as though they were an extension of the sewer.
As one of those who visited the docks and was shown around, although not as part of the great freebie which I understand took place at a different time, I drew a different conclusion. My conclusion was that those sewage outfalls must certainly be eradicated, but as part of the general eradication of outfalls to which the Government are now pledged. There is an indefinite time limit, but they are pledged to that. The lesson to be drawn from it is that the mud flats should be cleaned up and that they are not


something to be abhorred. I have found them quite attractive at times. If the course line and river were cleaned up they have the potential to be very attractive.
In pushing this, we are making our overall argument that the clean-up of the estuary can be achieved without the construction of a barrage and we just have answers about what exactly will happen to the sewage outfalls.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I want to be absolutely clear that the House knows what we are doing. I will put the Question again on the closure.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 8.

Division No. 117]
[4.11 am


AYES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bowls, John
Lightbown, David


Brazier, Julian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bright, Graham
Mans, Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Michael, Alun


Burt, Alistair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Flynn, Paul
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Foster, Derek
Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)


Gale, Roger
Stern, Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Stevens, Lewis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Goodlad, Alastair
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grist, Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Hanley, Jeremy
Tredinnick, David


Harris, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wood, Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)



Hunt, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Irvine, Michael
Mr. Allan Rogers and


Jackson, Robert
Mr. Elliot Morley.




NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, Dave
Dr. John Marek and


Rowlands, Ted
Dr. Kim Howells.

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure).

Dr. Marek: I have never before had the privilege of being cut off in full flow by Members on my own side, but it has been an instructive exercise. The Government have now abandoned the Bill.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend will regret that.

Dr. Marek: Let us see some evidence. I shall be happy to regret it, if it happens.
Only 52 Members wanted to close the debate. I shall be happy to sit down immediately if the Minister, or a sponsor of the Bill, attempts to answer some of the questions that have arisen under the new clauses, but so far

nothing has happened. The Minister remains silent, perhaps because his troops are not behind him: only 52 are here. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth were present to answer some of my questions.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Before the Division, my hon. Friend was talking about new clauses 6 and 8. All that we are doing in those two new clauses is called for a plan. No work or expenditure would be needed; it is a precautionary principle. The building of the barrage will pose a danger of serious pollution problems. Our request is very modest. How can hon. Members claim any "green" credentials while refusing to adopt a precautionary plan?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has returned: I beseech him to answer some of our questions. It is a great pity that he was not here for most of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West.
Anxiety has been expressed about the cleanliness of the lake and the health aspects. The Minister refuses to open his mouth. He has been given strict instructions by somebody not to speak.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing pleasure at seeing me and I am pleased to be here for his speech. I was present for large chunks of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and found them enjoyable and enlighten-ing. Some hours ago I answered the questions that are raised by the amendments. My answers were contained in brief and modest interventions and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) heard some, if not all, of them. They were brief and to the point. I hope that I have dealt sufficiently with the points that were made.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful for that explanation, which is better than what we have had from the Minister, who has not said anything.

Mr. Michael: The Minister must account for himself. He does not represent a Cardiff constituency. I do, and my constituency includes the whole of the Cardiff bay development area, although that development has serious implications for other Cardiff constituencies, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). That is why we take such a positive interest in the matter.

Dr. Marek: I appreciate that, and not for a moment do I think that it could be otherwise. However, the Welsh Office has a central role because it is responsible for almost every facet of administration in Wales. The leaked letter from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Home Secretary states that he sees
the Cardiff Bay development as a vital component in one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects in Europe.
In view of the serious problems raised by some Opposition Members about pollution that could be caused by the barrage, Treasury spokesmen should have given their view. That is done for most other private Bills and I do not understand why the Welsh Office should write


secret letters to other Ministers and not be prepared to account for its secret action in the full glare of television and the other media.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is quite wrong to describe these letters as secret. They are extremely public and everybody seems to be repeating like a mantra references to them. My hon. Friends obviously intend to be helpful, but they are giving the Secretary of State publicity for supporting the Bill. The matter is important and I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the co-promoter of the Bill is Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council. That positive support comes from the members and leaders of that authority, and those people live in the area of the proposed development. I accept that it may be difficult to perceive that from the long-distance perspective of Wrexham, but I assure my hon. Friend of that positive support. I hope that that will encourage him to support that Bill, even if my earlier comments did not.

Dr. Marek: I am extremely glad to have that reassurance. I hope that my hon. Friend will remain in the Chamber, because I intend to direct my speech principally at him. He cannot pretend that the Government have nothing to do with the Bill. The letter contains the names of many Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but I will not detain the House by reading out all of them.

Mr. Michael: I have written to hon. Members asking them to support the Bill. Why does not my hon. Friend give me some credit for what I have tried to do? Why is he so concerned to give publicity to the Secretary of State for Wales? My hon. Friend's attitude is most unfriendly.

Dr. Marek: I have not brought my hon. Friend's letter with me into the Chamber.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend put it straight into the bin.

Dr. Marek: No, I did not. It is in the House. I could produce it in a few minutes.

Mr. Rogers: Talk of the letter is obviously disturbing some of my hon. Friends because they find themselves in the same camp as the Tories. It is clear that the Government have a strong locus in these matters and that is why the Under-Secretary of State should answer some of the questions that have been asked during the debate. The Government have put hundreds of millions of pounds of public money into the venture and much of that money will be spent on works that are included in the Bill. Surely the Minister should justify that expenditure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will understand that Back-Bench Members, for whatever reasons, may or may not support the Bill, but if the Government spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money they should answer to Parliament for that expenditure.

Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend.
Two of my hon. Friends have proposed closures of the debate and those motions have not been carried. I would expect my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to admit that there is some substance in the arguments that have been advanced or at least to recognise some of the fears that are reflected in the new clauses and

to promise to consider the new clauses carefully, or even perhaps to accept some of them. If it is not possible for that to be done on the spur of the moment, he could at least get together with the Government and say, "The Bill has not passed through the House as we thought it would when we embarked on our consideration of it at 7 pm. We had better adjourn the debate so that we can consider what must be done. Perhaps we should meet my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to discuss the best way of proceeding with the Bill."

Mr. Michael: I made it clear earlier that serious issues were being raised by hon. Members, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) in opening the debate. As I said to him, however, the issues are covered by the wording of the Bill as far as they should be, and that other more general items should be covered in more general legislation. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that we shall have the opportunity to deal with the more general items when, in the near future, we have a Labour Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said in his intervention, the Bill involves a massive public investment in my constituency. If the money is not spent in that way, it will not be spent elsewhere in Wales. Instead, it will remain in the coffers of the Treasury. I wish that my hon. Friends would allow the investment to take place in my constituency. It will do so much for the housing, the environment, the jobs and the well-being of my constituents. Surely that is the basis of our debate. I remind my hon. Friends, as they seek to debate important issues, that the benefits to which I have referred will be at stake at the conclusion of our debates.

Dr. Marek: In principle, I do not dissent from that, although I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is shaking his head. if we can get the Bill right, I would not be against the redevelopment of this part of Cardiff. I have been round the area, although not on an official tour. I have carried out research and I believe that the Bill contains much that could be put right.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will believe that I approach this debate constructively. I am not speaking just for the sake of it. I should like answers to my questions and in the absence of satisfactory answers, there will have to be a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth needs 100 hon. Members to force the closure and he and the Government cannot achieve that. I believe that I have raised serious points and if they can be answered I will willingly finish my remarks.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is asking my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to answer his points and those answers are not forthcoming from my hon. Friend or from the Government Front Bench. Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and give him one of the answers that he seeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that huge sums of public money had been invested in his constituency. That is true. However, one would have thought that he would have asked for a return on that money. The returns do not arise from extra building land or land for houses. If we consider the matter


carefully, we see that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth would be adversely affected.
The direction of the profits on the public money is revealed in a report of a consultant employed by the Cardiff bay development corporation. The report states that the projected land value in the area with no barrage, simply with regard to business space, is £130 million. Fjowever, with the barrage, the consultant expects the same building space to be worth more than £1 billion. It is worth £900 million in land values alone. With respect to the total of business space, industrial space, retail space, residential and leisure space, the land value in the area as a result of the massive investment of public money to the company will rise from £211 million to £1,300 million. That is where the profit on the public money is going. That is one of the answers that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was seeking and he was unlikely to receive such an answer from the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is more interested in his constituents than in the money-grabbing people involved in the venture—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will confine himself to the new clauses.

Dr. Marek: I am sure that we shall be able to discuss the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda later. I will not dwell on the point now, but the point is significant and it should be considered. If large profits are to be made, they should go to the people of Cardiff and not be siphoned off somewhere else. That point should be answered, preferably by the Minister.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) appears to have described a strange new Government strategy. It seems that public money is being used to generate inflation. Is not that a strange departure? I know that there has been a change of leadership in the Conservative party and the Conservatives do not know which way they are going, but this is a strange philosphy.

Dr. Marek: It might generate inflation, although I do not suppose that it would generate inflation if it went to Majorca.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda was led away because he looked at the returns. My point is that the returns on public investment should relate to housing, jobs, the environment and the economy. The environmental issues that we are debating in this group of amendments are very important, but they are satisfied by the provisions in the existing clauses. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary.
4.45 am
Job creation is not just in the interests of the city of Cardiff; it is also in the interests of the rest of south Wales, including the constituents of many hon. Members who object to the Bill. Their constituents come now and in future will come in larger numbers to work in the city. I do not begrudge such a benefit to local communities and economies.

Dr. Marek: I do not intend to deal with the economy, which is the subject of a later group of amendments. My

hon. Friend maintains that the new clauses are otiose because these matters are already included in the Bill. New clause 8 states, as do the other new clauses:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls discharging directly into the inland bay or into the waters of the rivers discharging into the Bay or the tributaries thereof".
Does the Bill contain a provision that states that before any work starts a plan shall be produced showing the sewer outfalls discharging into the area? If the Bill contains such a provision, I can dispense immediately with that part of my speech. If, however, it contains no such provision, it cannot be wrong to include a clause that would give to the people of Cardiff the right to know exactly how many sewers are pumping sewage into the rivers and surrounding areas. They ought to have that information.
The second half of new clause 8 says that a plan shall be published
showing the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement thereof and the agreement of the owner of each outfall to such removal, relocation or improvement.
If the Bill already provides for that, I hope that someone will point to the page and line of the Bill that says so. If it does not say that, what is wrong with adding the new clause to the Bill? It is a simple question and it demands an answer. I am sorry to say that at this stage the Minister, hiding behind his secret letters, intends to say nothing. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth can say something about it, I shall be grateful.

Mr. Michael: The point is that diversion of sewer outfalls upstream of the barrage must be a matter for Welsh Water and the National Rivers Authority. It does not arise directly from the creation of the barrage. We have already undertaken to divert the sewers that feed into Cardiff bay. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was here when we debated that matter at an earlier stage. Had he been here he would have heard that that is not a matter of dispute between local Members of Parliament. The new clause goes way beyond
what is appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. It deals with matters that we should all like to see resolved, but they ought not to be loaded on to the back of this Bill.

Dr. Marek: I am reassured to some extent. At least something will be done in the area of the bay. As I am not an expert in water treatment, and as there seems to be no objection from any of my hon. Friends, I am quite happy to take my hon. Friend's word in respect of that amendment.
New Clause 6 says:
Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.
The second part of the provision is simply an explanation of the need for the first part; it does not demand any action. Let me repeat the words from the first part:
the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping".
Can my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth tell me why there should not be published a plan indicating what provision has been made for these activities?

Mr. Michael: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to stretch your patience by repeating points that I made earlier, but my hon. Friend almost demands that I do so. Currently, Welsh Water and NRA do not consider that phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping are required from the outset to achieve the necessary water quality. However, as I said earlier, paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 69(13) cover that situation where works are required upstream of the inland bay. The undertakers are required to meet the cost of any works that are necessary, over a period of 20 years, to satisfy water quality standards. This provision could include phosphate stripping if the water quality standards so required. The point, which has been well made by my hon. Friend, is covered in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by that, too.

Dr. Marek: It is a reassurance to a certain extent. However, there is no absolute guarantee of phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping in any of the waters coming in from the head waters.

Mr. Morgan: If phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping become necessary within the first 20 years, the development corporation, as co-promoters, will have to pay Welsh Water and the NRA to do the job. A great fear is that if that responsibility can be dodged for the first 20 years, it will be dodged. There may be arguments about variations in climate conditions, the appropriate technol-ogy, the compulsory acquisition of land, and the location of phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping plants. Are the plants to be located at the sewage works as add-on components or will the people concerned do the much more ambitious, but possibly necessary, job of locating them where the waters actually enter the bay so that all possible sources are covered?
Nineteen years could easily elapse before a plan is agreed. With a little delay, the 20 years could be gone. In that event, who would pick up the tab? It seems that that is left completely in the air. Will the Cardiff city council, as the legatee body, pick up the bill or will the NRA, as the monitoring body, be responsible? The NRA will not have the necessary capital funds for a scheme costing £50 million. Or will Welsh Water—a private business—have to meet the cost? If so, its shareholders will not be very pleased. This fear has been expressed to me by very senior people in the NRA in Wales.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I shall read carefully what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said. He mentioned complying with standards. Will he say that those standards will be complied with on time and not 20 years later, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West suggests?

Mr. Michael: I assure my hon. Friend that I intend to be around for more than 20 years, during which time I shall ensure that compliance is not dodged. It is in the interests of my constituents that I ensure that it is not. I hope that the NRA will pursue vigorously the requirements of the Bill and that future environmental legislation will make the requirements more stringent and will insist on timeous compliance with them. The Bill offers a series of tight and testing requirements—they have been described as draconian—and I and others who have supported the Bill will ensure that they are enforced.

Dr. Marek: I shall weigh those remarks carefully when deciding how to vote on the new clause.
New clause 5 provides:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters … and its proposals for removing, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.
There may be no proposals for the removal, relocation or improvement of such sources, but what is wrong with producing and publishing a plan pertaining to the sources of leachate? I am sure that the citizens of Cardiff would like such information at their fingertips. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth any helpful comments to make on that?

Mr. Michael: I hope that all my comments are helpful —they are certainly intended to be. My hon. Friend has misread the Bill. The Bill requires outfalls from Ferry road tip, Cowslip, Cogan and Penarth dock to be removed, relocated or diverted, to the satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority. There is a requirement on the developers to satisfy, by one or other of those means, the requirements of the NRA.
I do not want to go into detail on the drafting of new clause 5, but there are deficiencies as it asks for a report. It is not clear what is meant by sources of
groundwater in hydraulic contact … and proposals for removal, relocation or improvement.
The Bill is quite clear.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West could perhaps enlighten us on the meaning of that phrase. Before I invite him to do so, may I say that if my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is right and there are only three sources of leachate, we already have half the answer to the question raised in the new clause. If the NRA were to publish its proposals for the removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate, the new clause would be otiose. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West seek to intervene?

5 am

Mr. Morgan: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that he did not understand the wording that I had drafted in the new clause about hydraulic contact with the barrage. It is simple. The structure on which low-lying Cardiff is built used to be drained by artificial drainage ditches, rather like the Dutch polders which I am sure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have seen on your trips to the tulip fields. Those have been built over and cannot be seen, but there is water flowing under the ground from the rivers when the tide is in.
If we retained a high water level, water would flow back and forth permanently along the old drainage ditches and under people's houses. Therefore, all the time there would be washing out of any pollutants from a tip or any other chemicals which might drain down from the clinker which was used as a standard building material to provide foundations over the 100 years or so when there was massive use of coal. Clinker, of course, contains all manner of polluting trace elements which will drain down into the ground water in the old drainage ditches with the impounded water in the lake.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful for that explanation. I will bear carefully in mind the statements of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
The conditions of new clause 17 may well be satisfied. In any case, I do not see any reason why the new clause should not be added to the Bill. It is similar to new clause 5. It says:
Before commencement of impounding by means of the barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish proposals for the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the city council that no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur.
I should have thought that that was an important new clause and that every citizen of Cardiff would wish to be satisfied that that would happen. If it is anywhere in the Bill, I hope that the Minister will tell me where it is, and I will be delighted to say no more about it. It is a sensible provision. I am sure that citizens of Cardiff will want to be satisfied that there is no material risk of infiltration. The new clause does not ask for the impossible. There could be immaterial risks of infiltration because there is no such thing as 100 per cent. success in such matters. I commend the new clause to the House and hope that it will be passed in due course.
New clause 19, which deals with algal scum, says:
Before the commencement of impounding, the undertakers shall commission and publish proposals for the proper disposal of algal scum arising in the inland bay that are consistent with the preservation and maintenance of good water quality standards at the site of disposal and in adjoining waters.
That is probably the most difficult of the new clauses. It certainly asks for no more than that the commission should publish proposals for proper disposal—but exactly what does "proper disposal" mean? It can mean different things to different people.
When the clause says that the proposals must be
consistent with the preservation and maintenance of good water quality standards at the site of disposal",
that is also open to interpretation. That new clause is perhaps a little too loose and I would have made it tighter. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall listen carefully to see whether he can illuminate the matter for me.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House the book first referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) entitled "Toxic Blue-Green Algae". It is a report by the National Rivers Authority published in September 1990. On page 79 it states:
Knowledge of the environmental effects of the toxins"—
produced by the algae—
is largely based on circumstantial evidence.
If the document is to be believed—and I think that it should be because it is a scientific paper:
Toxic blue-green algae have been recorded from UK lakes for many years, although no major ecological perturbations have been attributed directly to the effects of the toxins. Their potential for causing problems is well documented. Toxicity data obtained by intra-peritanial injection indicate that toxins produced by blue-green algae rank amongst the most toxic compounds of biological origin.
The next statement is important;
The main uses of water which are most affected are those of general amenity, recreation and livestock watering.
I am concerned that a scientific paper states, first, that evidence about the environmental effects is based largely

on circumstantial evidence and, secondly, that the main uses of water most affected are those of general amenity and recreation. That is precisely what water in the barrage will be used for. I think it right—and I hope that you, Mr.Deputy Speaker, will also think it right—that those matters should be raised. It would be, not a terrible calamity, but very sad if the Cardiff barrage were built merely to increase the capital value of the land by £900 million—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said—and it was then discovered, with hindsight, that nobody would have built it because of the environmental and toxic effects of the algae that could develop in the lake.
It is difficult to prove the case. All that we can do is listen to the arguments—I have done so—and make up our minds at the end of the debate about which way we should vote.
Paragraph 12.16 on page 81 states:
The clear message, however, is that there are no easy options and many of the control methods currently available are not likely to be effective in the short term. The possible exceptions to this are whether there is sufficient depth for destratification to be effective.
I do not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to be able to give us the answers all the time, but I should like to hear that there is sufficient depth for destratification to be effective. However, listening to my hon. Friends' speeches, there seemed to be much concern about whether the control options that are being proposed—certainly as described by them—will be effective. It would be wrong to build the barrage and then have to say with hindsight, "Sorry, we did the wrong thing. We shouldn't have built it." That is the crunch question.
Of course that area of Cardiff has to be developed. Let me pay tribute to the Government. On occasions they have recognised that there is problem there and that the area needs developing. I do not think that that is at issue in the House this morning. What is at issue is, have we got it right, are we going about it the right way? There are serious questions about the barrage and the problems of controlling algae and they have not so far been dispelled to my satisfaction.
One issue that pertains to the new clause regards the management of the lagoon, which is important. We are talking about pollution in the lagoon and ensuring that it is clean, healthy and contains good water. I should like to compare two Bills, as there have been more than one. I have here what I hope is a copy of the latest Bill. The trouble is that it does not say which one it is—it would be a lot easier if it had a date on it so that we knew which copy was which. I also have a copy of a previous Bill. The only way that I can identify it is that on the new copy, on the second page, underneath the heading "Cardiff Bay Barrage [H.L.] Arrangements of Sections", "50/3" is printed and "50/2" on the old Bill. Therefore the "50/2" Bill must be an earlier version than the "50/3" Bill, but I am sorry that I have not been able to find out precisely how early.
Clause 54 of the old Bill—

Mr. Michael: I am trying to follow what my hon. Friend is saying, but he has thrown me a little with his references to the lagoon, which is not dealt with in the new clauses before us at present. If I am wrong, perhaps my hon. Friend would draw my attention to the part of the new clauses that he is referring to. I have a feeling that I am missing an important point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was getting slightly worried when the hon. Gentleman seemed to be dealing in some detail with the lagoon. I think that it would be more appropriate to discuss that when we come to amendment No. 115 and those grouped with it, which specifically deal with the lagoon.

Dr. Marek: We shall certainly come to that consideration, and I understand that it is different. I shall explain this in detail later as there is a significant change in the management of the lagoon in the old Bill when compared to what is stated in the new Bill.

Mr. Michael: There may be some mistake. Would my hon. Friend tell us what he means by "the lagoon"?

Dr. Marek: I mean precisely what it says in the Bill —not the lake and the waters coming from the Taff. I do not want to dwell on it at this stage, because, as Mr. Deputy Speaker says, it would be more appropriate to discuss it later. The lagoon affects cleanliness and the environment, which is why I have raised the matter at this stage.
There are significant differences between the old and new Bills. Although I shall not do so now, I had intended to seek to develop an argument in relation to the new clauses on the waters and leachates from the Taff and the Ely, to see whether the development corporation has made any other changes in its philosophy towards fulfilling its functions under this Bill, compared with what it was seeking to do under the older Bill. I suspect that there is plenty of time left in the debate and that we can return to that matter, which I shall certainly do at the appropriate time.
5.15 am
My next point was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who talked about money and about who would benefit from the development. I should like the people of Cardiff to benefit from it—but I must be careful not to stray from the scope of the new clauses. I hope—I am sure—that there will be an opportunity later to discuss this matter when we take a quick look at the clauses on land acquisition. If my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is correct, a large sum will flow from the building of the barrage, so money should be put back into the scheme to make it absolutely clear to everybody that there will be no leachates and no build-up of nitrates and phosphates, that all the SSOs will be dealt with and, especially, that algae will be dealt with effectively. That is a difficult issue. I know that the Bill contains proposals on dealing with algae, and that that is a matter for conjecture, but other aspects of the Bill are not the subject of conjecture.
If money is to be available because of an increase in land values, I should like to know where the money will go. Will it be siphoned off, perhaps by a few wealthy people who probably do not or will not live in the Cardiff area? Will there be any return to the Welsh Office? If so, we should know. If the Welsh Office is to have some return, perhaps it should spend some money to make absolutely sure of these points and to satisfy the people of Cardiff on them.
If the return is to go to the development corporation —I do not know its term of reference although I have asked—who will have the money? Where will it be distributed? Is the local authority to have any money? Will

South Glamorgan county council get any money out of the development? It should, if £900 million is to result from the development. Whoever gets the return, a decent amount of money should be spent to make absolutely sure that the people of Cardiff are satisfied that they will have a top-class environment.

Mr. Michael: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would leave the satisfaction of the people of Cardiff to those who represent them. I am sure that he will agree that principles are important, not just sums of money, so may I ask him for the assurance that he will ask the list of questions that he has just asked about any public investment in his constituency and that he will look forward with interest to all of us asking such questions with equal stringency before any money from the public purse is spent in his constituency in the future?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I am not criticising the spending of money. I do not criticise anything. I am asking a question. Some £900 million is to be created by this development. I repeat for the third time that whether there should be development in the area is not at issue. I give my full backing to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I want development to go ahead in the area.

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Marek: May I finish this point?
I do not criticise the spending of money. I welcome any advice that my hon. Friend has to give me at any time. There is no problem about that. But if a lot of money is to be made, who will make it and will the people of Cardiff benefit?

Mr. Michael: I understand my hon. Friend's difficulty in answering a straight question. If a road is built in his or any other constituency which creates access to land or if infrastructure works are undertaken, value is created. My hon. Friend asks stringent questions about this proposal, but will he apply the same stringency to each item of public expenditure in his area? Did he apply such stringency to the building of roads in his constituency in the past? Consistency would certainly require it. I have always sought to ensure that public money is used to good advantage and bring development to the area. My hon. Friend asks a series of specific and demanding questions, it seems with greater stringency in relation to my constituency than I suspect that he would do in his own.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend does me a disservice. Few matters, certainly under local government administration should be secret and confidential. Of course, personal information and certain commercial information has to be confidential, but nothing on the strategic scale of who is going to make money out of a development, how much and where it is to go should be kept confidential.
In Wrexham I have difficulty obtaining answers for many of my constituents about what local government undertakes there. I do not say that in any pejorative way. Unfortunately, it is a habit of administrators from John o'Groats to Lands End to keep matters confidential to avoid unnecessary questions and trouble.

Mr. Michael: We are not talking about confidentiality. In the past I have had responsibilities on Cardiff city council as chairman of finance, chairman of economic development, chairman of planning and deputy chairman


of the central area development committee, which dealt with a project of major importance, indeed the most important project in the city. If one is to boost an economy and create success in the area, an element of opening up possibilities is required. Infrastructure has to be built. Roads that open up sites, create access and allow things to happen have to be built. Sometimes it is necessary to invest in the future without seeing exactly the shape of that future.
For example, in Wentloog not far from the areas that we are discussing, originally it was hoped to bring in a single major employer. Clearly, such large investment does not arrive very easily. So now the same area, with some infrastructure works completed, is being considered for development in a more piecemeal manner. I assure my hon. Friend that one cannot say that this person or that person will benefit from a development. But we can ensure that the result has a pretty good likelihood of bringing a return to the whole community in jobs and improvements to the economy of the area.
By moving forward over time one can see the development of an economy. That is what we have succeeded in doing in Cardiff to build the economy of the city to the point at which it can sustain the tremendous development that is now taking place in south Cardiff where the city has been brought back into its heartland. I ask my hon. Friend to understand that those issues are basic to the development proposed in the Bill. They are not matters to which we come lightly. That is why I feel that some of the questions that my hon. Friend is asking are a trifle naive and that he might not ask them when he seeks to promote development in his own area.

Dr. Marek: I shall not enter into an argument about our respective experiences. I have simply been asking one question. If my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is right that the barrage will result in added value of £900 million, it is not naive to ask where that sum is going, who will get it and will the people of Cardiff benefit. The people of Cardiff will want answers to those questions. Of course they will see benefits from the development in many of its facets. It will provide more housing, jobs and infrastructure. It will give a general impetus to Cardiff. I must not bore the House by repeating myself for a fourth time, but there is no issue between us on that. We all see that. I hope that my hon. Friend will not doubt me any more on that. But it is right and proper in a legislature performing a scrutiny role for us to be able to see exactly what is going on. Such things should not be confidential, nor should they be brushed aside. People should not be told that the NRA knows best and that they need not worry. I have always fought for the public to have the right to know.

Mr. Michael: Who has said any of those things?

Dr. Marek: That is the interpretation that I put on some of the discussions that we have had on the new clauses. For example, my hon. Friend said that the requirements of one of the new clauses would be met since any conditions would have to satisfy the NRA. Leaving something to the requirements of the NRA at some time in the future might be acceptable, but it is not as good as spelling it out straight away.

Mr. Michael: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that his remarks were a pretty comprehensive misrepresentation of what I have said at various stages in the debate. At present, the NRA has statutory responsibility in these matters and the Bill places power in the hands of the NRA to require certain standards to be met. That has certain consequences for the undertakers.
As I agreed earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), there might be a number of improvements in the way in which environmental matters are dealt with and enforced in Britain and the way in which water quality is dealt with, and which we look forward to enacting in due course. But the arrangements in the Bill are appropriate to the present circumstances and it is a trifle unfair for my hon. Friend to ask for something which goes way beyond the general requirements of the law and becomes a burden on Cardiff and the developments that the people of Cardiff see in prospect. Many of the arrangements in the Bill go ahead of what is currently in legislation and that is certainly the case in many of the agreements that underpin the Bill. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to be a trifle more generous to the care with which we have pursued these matters in reaching this point in the legislative process.

Dr. Marek: I am sure that in the course of time I have misrepresented my hon. Friend because my memory is not word perfect, but I have not done so wilfully. Any misrepresentation has been simply because of my inability to remember precisely what he said.
We have reached the crux of the argument between us. I am sure that the Cardiff Bay development corporation and my hon. Friend have considered the matter carefully, but how far do we go? My hon. Friend believes that it is sufficient to accept the Bill, and that that should satisfy the people of Cardiff and hon. Members. I believe that we should go further by accepting the new clauses, which make it clear that the people of Cardiff have nothing to fear because the environment will not be harmed as a result of any works undertaken should the Bill be enacted.
5.30 am
New clause 17 referred to sealing the Ferry road tip to the satisfaction of the NRA and the environmental health officer. I should prefer that obligation to be spelt out in the Bill, but I understand the other view.
We should know how much money will be involved and where it will come from. We should know how much money will be created and what will be spent and where. Every person in Cardiff has a legitimate interest in those answers, as does every hon. Member, as we have the important function of scrutinising public finance. Those questions are not naive and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda can enlighten the House about them later.
We have had an interesting debate, but there are still a few more speakers to come. There is much agreement between the two sides about the development of the city of Cardiff. There is also much agreement on the new clauses. Hon. Members may place a different emphasis on different items. The Secretary of State spoke about undertaking
one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects in Europe".
I should be pleased if every storm sewer overflow were considered in a similar spirit and either removed, relocated


or improved. If the proposed barrage is the most exciting in Europe, that should be spelt out so that every storm sewer overflow is attended to.
The people of Wales have put up for years with the pollution of their rivers; it is time that it stopped. It could stop because of the biggest and best project of urban regeneration in Europe. Can we have a statement from the Minister or the promoters of the Bill to say that there is enough money to clean all the rivers? A commitment to that effect would receive three cheers from everyone in Cardiff, Wales and the rest of the country. If a start were made in Cardiff, it would not be long before other areas demanded similar improvements.

Mr. Michael: The cleaning of the sewage outfalls into the Cardiff bay will happen as a result of the development of that bay, which is a positive improvement. I should not have been a whit surprised to hear hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd say that the knock-on from that development should be the clean-up of the sewage outfalls in his area. I am sure that my hon. Friend would press the Government for that. Then there would be no difference between us.
The difference between us in the present debate arises from the fact that those who support the new clauses seem to wish to place excessively onerous requirements on those undertaking the project. They seem to take a beggar-myneighbour approach and to say, "You cannot have improvements in Cardiff unless we have improvements in our area"—even though that has nothing to do with the barrage. My hon. Friend asks that positive developments in Cardiff should have a knock-on effect elsewhere. I think that that is already happening.

Dr. Marek: Then let us see it happening. Let us have a cast-iron promise that every SSO will be attended to.
There is a difference between Cardiff and places further up the valleys and in north Wales. In Cardiff, there is the possibility of regeneration and the ability to create wealth and income through the construction of shops. The money created could be spent on environmental benefits. That will not be possible in Pontypridd. It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd has gone out to get a cup of tea. I am sure that he seeks for his area the benefits that I seek for Wrexham, but we shall not get those benefits because there is never enough money to go round to allow one to do immediately everything that one would wish. The Cardiff scheme is unique because it will release money to achieve such aims. I am concerned that a decent proportion of the money thus released should go towards environmental benefits and improving the quality of life for the people of Cardiff and the surrounding area. One does not get the impression from the Bill that all the money —or anything like all of it—will be spent for the benefit of the people of Cardiff.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend must look further than the requirements of this one Bill, to the developments worked up in co-operation between the local authorities and the development corporation and with the statutory undertakings. He must look at requirements in the Bill that have developed, following agreement, as the process has evolved, in an attempt to ensure that positive environmental and other benefits ensue in the area. My hon. Friend is a little unkind not only to the development corporation but to the local authorities and other bodies that have sought ways to achieve positive improvements,

and incremental as well as direct benefits, from the changes. Many of us have taken part in that process, which is happening around the Bill. The results of the process are contained in the Bill and I have already referred to some of them.

Dr. Marek: I thank my hon. Friend.
The problem is that the development is taking place at a time when we have a Tory Administration. My hon. Friend is right that councils wish to serve their areas. They are always on the look-out for ways to find jobs for their people, for ways to develop and for ways to build houses. Under the present Administration, that has been very difficult. We started with a recession in 1980–81; we are in a recession now, in 1990–91. We have learnt nothing in 10 years. Meanwhile, local authorities do not have any money and cannot build houses, and that brings us back to the Bill, because I am told—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda voiced this supposition some hours ago—that the barrage is required if houses are to be built and sold at a good enough price, to people from I know not where, to make money for the scheme to go ahead —and, presumably, for the £900 million to be realised. There may be sense in that, if the Bill is held up for a few months; perhaps only until June, when there may well be a Labour Government. There must be a general election by July 1992.

Mr. Michael: If my hon. Friend has read the documentation that I sent him and other hon. Members some time ago, he will have noted that the economic benefits will become that much greater with the barrage. He is, of course, right to hope for the return of a Labour Government, but we want the barrage to be built so that Cardiff can benefit as quickly as possible from the improvement in the economy that will accompany that Government. I am surprised that my hon. Friend is not willing to support us on that basis, if on no other.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend must not say that I am not willing to support him. As I have said, I support the regeneration of Cardiff. It is really a question of getting it right. I do not know the time scale; it could well take a year for it to get out of the House of Commons and progress towards the statute book.
Life would be much easier under a Labour Government. No doubt, the Minister has pricked up his ears at that. I do not want to be misrepresented. No Labour Government would suddenly rush off to the Minister at Llantrisant and say, "Print us another £100 million; we want to help Cardiff and the barrage." However, local authorities would have more freedom to spend their capital housing receipts and would therefore have a greater input on the type of housing that would be available. I am not an expert and I have not examined the details, but I hope that by and large the housing provided would benefit the people of Wales in general and those of Cardiff in particular.

Mr. Michael: The resale price of properties in the bay area shows that that is happening. Furthermore having spoken last weekend to people living in a development in the area, I note that there are many local people there. It is not a yuppie paradise, as some of my hon. Friends have regrettably suggested.
The support of the local authorities, and the leading role of South Glamorgan county council, resulted from


their appreciation of the benefits, such as economic development and the regeneration of the area, that will result. The environment will not be disregarded, however, as the new clauses make clear.
I remind my hon. Friend that those matters have been dealt with and negotiated. Interesting, constructive and complimentary though some of his remarks may be, and much as both of us may look forward to the advent of a Labour Government, they basically have nothing to do with the new clauses or, indeed, with the Bill.

Dr. Marek: I beg to differ with my hon. Friend on that. The new clauses critically concern the barrage. The questions are: has the development corporation got it right, so that the barrage can be built without all the problems caused by algae, phosphates or nitrates, or by flooding? Will the people of Cardiff be happy with it, and not regret it? Is there a case for waiting before going ahead with the whole development? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West raised many concerns in his long speech.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman mentions a long speech. He ha. s been speaking for well over an hour and it is now 16 minutes to 6 o'clock. He challenged me to comment on the Bill. He said that he was trying to improve the Bill. Is not he trying to block it? I have listened to him on and off during the night and I am sure that he is participating in a blocking exercise.

Dr. Marek: No. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for excelling himself in answering my questions. He has reassured me on many issues, although not on all.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend spoke about the clearance of algae. Such matters should be kept in perspective. We all know that algae can cause problems and that research and management are required. Can my hon. Friend give an example of public demand for a stretch of water on which the problem has arisen to be drained?

Dr. Marek: The Rutland Water incident springs to mind, but the simple answer is that I do not know of an example. I am reluctant to say that algae bloom is common, but it has certainly become more common in the past 20 years. I do not have expert advice or evidence before me, but I think that it is likely that the problem will increase unless we are able to diagnose exactly how to control it. The National Rivers Authority document deals with control options and states on page 81 that the clear message is that there are no easy options.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend seems to accept that algae occur in nature, and that they need to be investigated, tackled and managed. I agree with my hon. Friend on that reasonable approach. The Bill places responsibility for management and its financing on those who will manage the stretch of water. That is entirely reasonable and I am sure that my hon. Friend and I can agree to dispose of that little point and of the others that we have explored successfully in the last hour.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall finish soon because my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is itching to speak. As I have said, the occurrence of algae is increasing.

Mr. Morgan: It is.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West agrees. That increase means that we have to be extremely careful. Should we go ahead with the development? Is there any profit in accepting the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) that properly cleaned mud banks are attractive? Perhaps they would be more attractive than the barrage. It is up to hon. Members to decide.

Mr. Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Marek: I shall do so for the last time because I want to finish my speech.

Mr. Morgan: It was precisely for that reason that in February I circulated to members of the Cabinet a photograph of, and a letter about, the exposed mud banks. We could clean up about 99 per cent. of the sewage and leave the mud banks as a feature. They would be covered twice a day and then uncovered for 15 to 20 hours, depending on where they are. The purpose of my sending the photograph and letter—they were referred to much earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), was to draw attention to what would be covered for ever. In effect, I was saying, "You may have heard that the mud banks are awful. Here is a photograph of them at low tide when they are supposed to look awful. The photograph shows what would be covered up permanently."
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North implied that my letter and photograph had a status equal to that of the letter of the Secretary of State. There was a Pavlovian reaction from the Under-Secretary of State, who produced that wonderful laugh of his. He seemed to forget that my letter does not carry authority and was not able to bring the payroll vote into the Chamber. The Secretary of State for Wales thought that he had that authority, but in the middle of the night it became clear that he did not. The sole purpose of my circulating the photograph and the letter was to produce evidence to members of the Cabinet. I took the view that they probably did not visit Cardiff bay at low tide and that they did not know what it looked like, it being a characteristic of the camera that it does not lie.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael: I know that my hon. Friend has an eye for these things. Does he agree that many photographs show beauty in industrial dereliction and other aspects of misery? A photograph can be a form of misrepresentation in the same way as any other form of documentation, unless one takes the context as a whole, including the environment in which the photograph was taken, and has regard to the appropriate filters and other devices that are used to ensure that the result is as attractive as possible.

Dr. Marek: I take that as a riposte to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). There is a subjective element. We must reach decisions as individuals. If we are allowed to divide the House on some of the new clauses that are before us, I shall vote for them. I should make it clear, however, that I would vote against some other new clauses.
The crucial decision is whether we can go ahead with the barrage. Are we sure that we would not be making a mistake by so doing? I ask the question on the basis that the decision would not be made on the ground of being


able to sell houses around the foreshore. Alternatively, should we say that, because of the uncertainties that have arisen during the debate, we should hold back from building the barrage but go ahead with the rest of the development? There may be other ways to improve the river and make it desirable, so that it becomes a magnet and a centre for a regenerated part of urban Cardiff that we all wish to see.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The debate on the new clauses has continued for eight hours. I have been in the Chamber for more than seven of those hours, waiting patiently to be called to contribute. In the past 40 minutes I began to wonder more and more whether I would be able to slip out of the Chamber to have a shave and avoid appearing on television with rather more than a 7 o'clock shadow at almost 6 o'clock in the morning. I was reminded of another valiant, stimulating and informative effort that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) during my days in the European Parliament and its Committees.
I recall that speeches in the European Parliament had specific time limits and I am sure that some hon. Members would have liked such limits on speeches in our debates today. However, in Committees in the European Parliament Members could speak virtually for as long as they liked. I recall our Italian friends saying—in various ways—that they were concluding their speeches at least half a dozen times over a period of 40 minutes or more.
Having sat through our eight hours of debate, I have found the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Wrexham most stimulating and informative.
I need not dwell too long on the new clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has done a signal service to the House in the way in which he has prepared the brief, concise and effective new clauses which, if accepted, would considerably strengthen the environment of the area being redeveloped in Cardiff.
The new clauses highlight important and specific problems about the sources of leaching. They also refer to phosphate and nitrate stripping, the difficulties relating to sewer outflows, the way in which the Ferry road tip will have to be dealt with and the proper disposal of algal scum.
New clause 19 states:
'Before the commencement of impounding the under-takers shall commission and publish proposals for the proper disposal of algal scum arising in the inland bay that are consistent with the preservation and maintenance of good water quality standards at the site of disposal and in adjoining waters.'.
Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that the developers have raised that issue and have properly identified it as a problem. In fairness to the Bill's proponents, there has been an effort to deal with the serious environmental problems arising from the proposal to build a barrage.
We believe that the proposals are not adequate and that they need to be tightened up and sharpened to make them truly effective. However, the Bill contains a reference to algal scum about which no mention has been made so far. That part of the Bill highlights a serious problem.
Clause 70(9) states:
If it reasonably appears to the City Council that amounts of algal scum are present in the waters of the inland bay, or there is infestation by vermin or pests in or about the inland bay then, upon the City Council giving notice in writing on any such occasion to the undertakers, the undertakers shall on each such occasion with all reasonable despatch take such steps as are reasonably required at their own expense to remove and properly to dispose of the same.
6 am
It may be said that that would deal with the problem, but we should look at it again. The subsection seems to imply that such events will occur regularly—that frequently during the summer algal scum will be present in the water and that there will be infestation by vermin or pests with almost monotonous regularity. Our amend-ments would ensure that the spectre raised in clause 70(9) was dealt with much more effectively.
New clause 17 provides that
before commencement of impounding by means of the barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish proposals for the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the city council that no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur.
That is related to new clause 5, which provides that
before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.
Standards are changing and improving all the time. That is well illustrated by the guidance issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution during the past few years on landfill gas. Guidance was issued at the beginning of 1989. In January 1991, about two years later, HMIP found it necessary to issue revised guidelines for dealing with landfill gas.
Last October, in Eastbourne, there was an important conference on issues relating to refuse tips and landfill gas. At that conference, Mr. John Nicholson, principal inspector of pollution, pointed out that environmental protection legislation will prevent landfill operators from surrendering their site licence at any time, by requiring them first to obtain a certificate of completion from a waste regulation authority after demonstrating that their landfills have stabilised and no longer pose a hazard to the environment or to human health. Mr. Nicholson suggested that landfill site operators are likely to have a continuing commitment to their sites for 15 to 50 years after closure. The Ferry road tip is still in use. It has seven years of life left. At this stage in the legislative process we are still not certain what will happen to it.

Mr. Morgan: This matter has a close connection with something which, at one time, I thought of including in my contribution. In the end I did not include it, but, with my hon. Friend's permission, I should like to expand on the point that he has made.
Obviously, Cardiff city council is extremely anxious to get the development corporation to decide whether to acquire the Ferry road tip. If the tip is acquired by the corporation, will it be leased back to the council for landfill use, or will it be removed, or treated and sealed? If the city council retains it, up to £12 million will have to be spent to seal it and remove the methane permanently. All the methane will have to be captured, and the by-products of


organic decomposition will have to be prevented from causing damage elsewhere. If the bay authorities buy the tip, the city council will not have a landfill tipping site. In that case, the bay authorities will be obliged to make good, and the city council will have the monitoring role. That is precisely the decision that the city council wants. Indeed,
it has been waiting for more than 12 months to find out what the co-promoters will do about Ferry road. There has been no decision yet.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his invaluable background information, which underlines my observa-tions about the management of landfill sites. In the case of Ferry road, will tipping be carried on for another seven years? We heard that 2 million cu m of decaying wreckage could be transported.
Just before my hon. Friend's invaluable intervention, I referred to Mr. Nicholson's comment that landfill sites will require 15 to 50 years of after-care to ensure that the gases being emitted are safe and that the leachate problem and all the other problems associated with a completed site are dealt with successfully. He pointed out that those requirements will have significant implications for the design and maintenance of gas controls and for post-closure site management.
On the period between site closure and the issuing of a certificate of completion, Mr. Nicholson said:
Access to the control system will be essential for monitoring, adjustment of valves and maintenance, the gas wells, pipelines and the necessary enclosure for the pump and flare stack will therefore restrict land usage. Around the site, access will be necessary to all monitoring bore holes and any monitoring points within services or buildings for most of the time that the site is actively gassing. However, it will be impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy how long the monitoring outside the wastes will be necessary, and one should therefore be pessimistic in quantifying any time scale.
He also said that control systems may need replacement every 10 to 15 years. Indeed, some controls have failed and have had to be replaced within five to 10 years.
The revised guidance includes advice on maintenance of control systems and on landfill settlement, which has proved to be a major cause of problems in maintaining the efficiency of the control measures.
The revised paper, which has now been issued, will encourage landfill operators and waste regulation authorities to adopt standard gas monitoring regimes so that comparable results are obtained. A minimum temperature of 600 deg C for gas flares was suggested in the 1989 paper, but a higher temperature has been recommended. More detailed advice will be given on gas monitoring in buildings and on sampling from bore holes and wells.
The advice deals with the properties of landfill gas, gas protection and measurement and monitoring techniques. When a landfill site has reached the end of its useful life, quality standards for its management are likely to rise, but the Ferry road site could be under post-completion management for up to 50 years. The monitoring procedures will mean not only that the site will be sterilised but that tests will have to be carried out on land around the site to ensure that it is safe.
Research has recently been carried out on landfill gas sites to extend our knowledge of health and odour nuisance risks. Those studies were sponsored by the Department of the Environment. The information I have comes from ENDS report No. 180 of January 1990. The findings are such that all hon. Members should be aware

of them. We are told that measurements of trace gas emissions from landfill sites by Harwell laboratory suggest that workers may be exposed to concentrations of toxic substances which exceed occupational exposure limits.

Mr. Michael: I do not want to disturb the flow of my hon. Friend's contribution, but I have been following his argument with interest, and I am not sure to which new clause he is referring or which one addresses the specific point that he is making.

Mr. Griffiths: Obviously, my hon. Friend was not listening to me earlier, when I said specifically that my comments relate to the publishing of proposals under new clause 17 for the sealing of the Ferry road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the environmental health officer of the city council, and also to new clause 5, which deals with the publication of a plan about sources of leachate in inland water. I will speak about the leachate problem later.
My comments relate to the safety of the management of the Ferry road tip or any tip while in operation and following closure. The study to which I was referring was sponsored by the Department of the Environment and was carried out by the prestigious Harwell laboratory. It showed that there was a danger to workers on site. The study also revealed that the dilution of landfill gases may be several orders of magnitude too small to prevent odour nuisance beyond landfill site boundaries. Of course, that has important implications—

Mr. Michael: I have been listening to my hon. Friend. He has referred to new clause 17 and to new clause 5. They deal with leachates in ground water. He is talking about research on the gas emissions risk resulting from tipping. I agree that it is an important issue which has wide and general application, as shown by the research to which he referred, but how do the two new clauses deal with it?

Mr. Griffiths: There are two aspects to new clause 17. First, it contains a proposal to seal the Ferry road tip, which leads to the question of the proper management of the tip when its working life is completed; secondly, it addresses the issue of the risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of ground water by leachate from the tip.
The study is concerned with a tip not only during its operation but when it closed, because the odours from the gases which are released are shown to be of such power that they would constitute a serious nuisance beyond the boundary of the tip.

Mr. Flynn: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not deliberately misleading the House, but new clause 17 refers to
the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority".
That does not suggest that it can be wrapped up in a cellophane bag in order to stop emissions of methane gas. The only way to control methane gas is to vent it. That has nothing to do with the rivers authority, whose sole interest is leachate.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend has failed to read the rest of the new clause because the sealing is done not merely to the satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority, but of the environmental health officer of the city council who, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, has a wide


range of duties relating to landfill sites and their management while they are being worked and after they are closed. It is not just a matter of venting the methane gas when the tip is closed, because other gases can be emitted from such a site.

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Griffiths: No, I shall not, because I think that the point has been sufficiently explored in interventions. I now feel that an attempt is being made to filibuster, so I shall continue with the serious findings of the study sponsored by the Department of the Environment.
The findings were presented at a conference in London in January last year by Dr. Philip Scott. We are told that they have significant implications for landfill operators. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 impose a duty to demonstrate that gases evolved from decaying refuse do not pose a significant health risk to site workers. That will apply to workers managing the site after it has been filled when post-site management work is being done.
Harwell identified a total of 136 trace gases present immediately below the surface of the landfills, of which 109 were common on all three sites where the investigations were carried out. The relative abundance of different groups of gases varies markedly between the sites and, following changes in operating regimes, at individual sites. I can only lament the fact that the Ferry road tip was not one of those at which the Harwell laboratory conducted its studies. Harwell also followed a procedure recommended by the Health and Safety Executive—

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Griffiths: Not now, but when I have completed this point I shall certainly do so.
The procedure assessed the impact of mixtures of toxic substances that exist when the site is operated and when it is closed and there are post-management problems. That showed that workers would be exposed to health risks for up to 1,000 days following the deposit of refuse, when trace gas emissions are at their most hazardous.
The Ferry road tip could be hazardous and in the immediate future—the three years after its closure—it may be a distinctly hazardous place for those workers managing the site on its completion. I can only say "may", because the Ferry road tip was not one of those investigated—I only wish that it had been.

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has referred to the wide powers of environmental health officers, the dangers to employees and gases below landfill tips, but the new clauses to which he is speaking are specifically limited to the requirement that
no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur.
In order to understand his point, I have asked my hon. Friend to show how his remarks relate to the new clauses, but I cannot see how they do.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman is not challenging his hon. Friend but is,

in a way, attempting to challenge the Chair. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is in order. However, I understand that he is bringing his comments to a close.

Mr. Griffiths: I was a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was trying to gag me on this important matter. [Laughter.] It is nothing to laugh about. It is an important matter and concerns a health risk to workers on the site when it is in operation and in the three years after its closure. Also, there is the less dangerous but unpleasant nuisance of odour detected in these studies for people living in the vicinity of the site both during its operation and after its closure.

Mr. Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall not give way on this issue any more. I want to deal with it and move on to the proposed European Community directive on the management of landfill sites when they have finished their useful life.
The report continues to say that at the three sites studied, a dilution of the order of 435 times sufficed to reduce gas concentrations below the hazard threshold and that such dilution generally appears within one metre of the surface. Sampling to measure the exposure of site operators is nevertheless required under the 1988 regulations and Harwell is now working with a leading landfill operator and a toxicologist to develop suitable monitoring techniques.
At two of the study sites, between 39 and 64 per cent. of the compounds detected were present at levels exceeding odour thresholds. The most prominent of these were methanethiol and ethyl butanoate. I am sure that everyone is familiar with those two gases.
According to Dr. Scott, a dilution factor of 100 million would be needed at the periphery of the study sites to reduce the concentration of these compounds below the odour threshold. In practice, that was never attained. Dilutions of I million were often observed, but 100 million is needed. In several instances, the dilution factor was as small as 60,000, so the odour was really bad.
Those figures demonstrate a substantial potential to cause odour nuisance—a conclusion confirmed by a recent Harwell analysis of public complaints about landfill sites in Essex, which show that complaints about odours are by far the most common. I have received many complaints from constituents about the odours from one of the landfill sites at Stormy Down. These complaints come from villages up to two miles as the crow flies away from the site, which shows how unpleasant the smell can be. Those dilutions were never obtained, and so the smell was bad, and that has been confirmed by further research in Essex.
Associated research by Harwell has shown that certain cover materials, notably pulverised fuel ash, can remove a large proportion of odorous compounds from the landfill gas. Absorption and microbiodegradation are thought to be responsible, but Harwell is hoping that Department of the Environment funding will be forthcoming to advance our understanding of the processes involved.

Mr. Flynn: I understand the case that my hon. Friend is trying to make, but he has quoted a report from Harwell, and, stripping away the gobbledegook and the language in which it is presented, the report reaches the devastating conclusion that rubbish tips smell. Could he relate that in some way to Ferry road? Rubbish tips smell when they are


new and when they are a few years old. They smell when they are covered and they hardly smell at all if they are ancient tips in an exposed area where there are strong winds. Could he tell us how the Ferry road tip matches the ones described in the Harlow report?

Mr. Griffiths: I am surprised that my hon. Friend has not managed to grasp the seriousness of the situation that was revealed in the Harwell studies. For his elucidation, I repeat that they show that for three years—1,000 days— after a site has been closed, there is a danger of the gases being toxic to the workers and managers on the site. If my hon. Friend feels that that is inconsequential, I am sorry that that is his interpretation. In addition, terrible smells emanate from the sites—but not for as long as three years, as far as I can gather, although the studies do not go into details about the longevity of the lingering smells. The point is that the smells constitute a nuisance to the people living in the neighbourhood. From my own experience, those smells can result in complaints from people living up to two miles away, which I should have thought sufficient—

Mr. Rogers: I have great sympathy with the way in which my hon. Friend is trying to present his argument on a difficult report, with technical terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has adopted a cheap way to participate in the debate, which is to pick on specific sentences in my hon. Friend's speech. He has now interrupted him at least half a dozen times. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) now proceed with the report? I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West rises, he will catch the eye of the Chair and be able to present his counter-argument. Some of us would welcome my hon. Friend's positive contribution to the debate. Some of us are also interested in the exposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and are trying to follow his argument closely. I wish that he would now proceed with it.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall not be diverted again from the issues that I am raising. I shall now deal with the issues relating to the management of a landfill site, especially when it has been completed and sealed, which gives rise to problems that can last from 15 to 50 years.
As I said at the outset, standards are changing all the time. Let us consider the European Community proposal for a landfill directive, which is a most instructive example. I have the fifth and sixth drafts of the proposal with me. If I were seriously interested in holding up our proceedings, I could discuss at length the way in which the two directives have been developed to deal with landfill sites when they have been completed and sealed off and the leachate problem is being tackled. However, I shall not do so, because I wish to concentrate on the sixth draft, on what we know about it and on the way in which it might affect the management of the Ferry road tip when its useful life has ended.
The sixth draft directive proposes a ban on the landfilling of liquid waste, and lays down extremely stringent permeability standards, which are important when dealing with the issue of leachates and penetration through the substrata into the underground water, and uniform limits on the hazards of waste components that are permitted within landfill sites.
The draft could also require that charges on landfill waste sites be paid into a special environmental clean-up fund. I am not sure how the fund would work, but money from such a fund might become available to the Cardiff Bay development corporation to buy the land at the site and manage it in the last few years of the life of the site, or, if it decided to close it, to take the necessary management steps to make the site safe and deal with the leachate problem in particular.
The proposal for a special environmental clean-up fund might be of some benefit to the corporation, but if it continued to operate the site for a few years, there would be a special levy on the refuse taken to the site. In effect, the corporation might find that the people using the site, such as Cardiff city council and others wishing to dispose of refuse, had to pay much more to enable the valuable and essential work of cleaning up the environment of the completed Ferry road site to be completed when that stage is reached.
It is still possible that the European Community landfill directive will be amended. Of course, the Government may have their own ideas about what needs to be done. It would be interesting to hear from Ministers the Government's view of the draft directive and how they feel that it might impact on the Ferry road site when it is completed. Obviously, that has some bearing on the way in which the site and the general area will be developed.
At this stage, the draft directive is couched in general terms but key selections of it will have a major impact on current landfill engineering standards in the United Kingdom and significantly restrict the range of wastes accepted into United Kingdom landfills. That may well be useful in coping with the leachate problem referred to in both new clause 17 and new clause 5. By introducing restrictions, the proposal could take out those substances which cause most difficulties when attempting to seal a site to ensure that the leachate problem does not occur and that potentially hazardous substances and gases do not mix with the groundwater and cause who knows what environmental damage. We hardly want to dwell on the possible consequences of such substances leaking into the Rivers Taff and Ely.
The general intention of the proposal is to harmonise technical standards for landfilling in anticipation of opening the Community's internal frontiers in 1992. The Commission even envisages cross-border movement of waste, although we do not need to dwell on that.
We have not had a statement from the Government in the House on this matter. The press seems to be their favourite way to communicate policy. They do not like to bring it to the House. We had a prime example this evening. The Secretary of State could have been here backing and explaining the Bill and responding to our amendments because he considers the barrage such an exciting prospect for both Cardiff and the whole of Wales. Instead, he was speaking in the Lobby to the Western Mail Lobby correspondent. It is only a pity that the Secretary of State could not have come in and shared his thoughts with us here, either yesterday evening or this morning.
From what I can gather, the United Kingdom Government and the waste disposal industry is likely to argue that the Commission is taking its proposals too far in many respects, although it can be expected to insist that the Commission should not concern itself so closely with what goes into landfill sites and to leave room for the variable technical standards which take account of the


different hydro-geological and environmental circumstan-ces within and between member states. To a certain extent, that is self-evident, because each site has its own particular hydro-geological properties, and the management en-gineering in sealing the sites will need to be adapted to each place depending on the permeability of the rocks and soil in the area.
That line of argument would clash with certain aspects of the Commission's approach. Therefore, there must be some doubt whether the United Kingdom will succeed in having the basic thrust of the proposal amended. Those closely involved in the environmental issues seem to feel that the United Kingdom's approach to the problem might not be the one to win the day. The current draft is based on article 100A of the European Community treaty and therefore would be open to adoption by a qualified majority vote of the Environmental Council. There would be no question of the Government being able to use a veto in that case. They would have to bow to the majority.
The draft text would therefore lay down certain basic engineering and operational standards for all types of landfill. Therefore, the general requirements for sealing the tips relating to the fencing of the site, nuisance prevention, important water ingress in the light of the leachate problem and the presence on site of a suitably qualified person responsible for the operation of the site, would be laid down.
On some issues, the draft is more specific. There are measures to control landfill gas and leachates. The draft directive on landfill gas insists that it must be collected and properly treated or used. It is not clear whether that would permit gas migration control measures such as passive vents or barriers, or whether it would require an active pumping system. Similarly, water and leachate would have to be collected under the terms of the draft directive. Therefore, that has some significance to the management of the site when it is finished.
I will not dwell on what is a suitable location because we are dealing in Ferry road with a tip which is already there. The draft directive would set up uniform numerical standards for the permeability of the non-saturated geological formations below the base and on the sides of the landfill. This is relevant to ensuring that the tip is efficiently sealed when work there has been completed.
The values for both hazardous and municipal waste landfills are set at 10 to the power of minus nine metres per second for a sub-stratum thickness of 3 m being measured under saturated conditions. The Ferry road site is likely to have such saturated conditions because it is located in a low-lying area and given its proximity to the rivers Taff and Ely.
The draft directive has outlined the values that would be required to manage the site and to cope with the problems of sealing it and dealing with the subsequent leachates. Those values would have to engineered on those sites where they do not occur naturally. I am sure that such standards occur naturally in the Ferry road site, but I should be interested to learn from any hon. Gentleman present whether the value of 10 to the power of minus nine metres per second for a sub-stratum thickness of 3 m measured under saturated conditions pertains to that site.

Mr. Rogers: I assure my hon. Friend that it does.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had hoped that the sponsors of the Bill would have such information at their fingertips.
The permeability co-efficient is 10 to the power of minus nine metres per second and it is exceedingly tight. I am no expert on such matters; I just take the advice of experts. It is so tight that it might allow landfilling only on an exceptional basis. I wonder whether any hon. Gentleman knows whether the Ferry road site meets the permeability co-efficient. If it does, it makes that much easier the task of sealing the site and dealing with the leachates once that site has completed its useful life.
Natural lining materials, such as heavy clay, often have a permeability of 10 to the power of minus eight metres. If that was not the case at the Ferry road site, an artificial lining system would have to be introduced to meet the desired standard.
I have already said that the draft directive will exclude waste from the landfill site, but it is important to study the annex to the directive. It contains a series of values and concentration thresholds that must be met before a particular waste can be deposited in a landfill. Two fixed parameters relate to those values. One concerns the weight loss of the waste when it is heated to 900 deg C in the dry state—that should not exceed 10 per cent. The other parameter is that the waste should not contain more than 4 per cent. by weight of lipophilic substances. That is important when dealing with the problem of sealing a site.
Wastes would also be subject to a shake test based on the 1984 west German din method. Effluent containing concentrations of contaminants in excess of those in a table that I have before me will be subject to certain conditions. I hardly dare read that table, as it is so technical, but I may feel compelled to do so later depending on how I feel the argument is developing. There are exceptions allowed for inorganic waste. The table also refers to hazardous waste. As far as we know, the Ferry road tip does not contain a great deal of hazardous waste. I have heard—I do not know whether it is true—that part of the tip may contain asbestos. If that is so, all of it was properly contained before being put into the tip. Perhaps hon. Members will be able to tell us that there are definitely no hazardous wastes involved, in which case the problems of leachates and of sealing the tip will be made that much easier to solve.
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will probably be delighted to know that I do not feel bound to read out the inert waste standards for 20 or so different types of waste.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am delighted to hear it, and I should be even more delighted if the hon. Gentleman would make a more determined effort to relate his remarks to the new clauses before us. I have been listening carefully to what he has had to say.

Mr. Griffiths: My point, Madam Deputy Speaker, was that the European Community is to introduce a proposal relating to the management of landfill waste sites. An important part of that process involves the management of a site after it has been filled in. New clauses 5 and 17 make particular reference to the need both to seal the site to the


satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority and the environmental health officer of Cardiff city council and to deal specifically with the leachate problem.
Those matters are dealt with in the European Community draft proposals on the management of landfill sites, and although those proposals are not yet law, they could become law before the Bill completes its passage through the House and are very likely to be law before the Cardiff bay barrage is built. That makes the new clauses requiring the developers to bring forward proposals to deal with sealing the site and with the problem of leachates even more important.
The monitoring of the site after it has been completed is most important. As I said earlier, Mr. Nicholson, the principal pollution inspector of HMIP, said that the site would need management for from anything between 15 and 50 years. The EC proposals suggest that the management period should be 30 years, and we must bear that in mind.
The monitoring proposals specified in the text include daily checks on a range of meteorological paramaters and of leachate volumes and regular measurements of leachate and surface water composition and gas emissions, when the site is in the operational phase, with less frequent measurements being required in the aftercare phase with which the new clauses are principally concerned.
Ground water levels and composition would also have to be checked, at least every six months, using at least three boreholes on the site. That gives some idea of the scale of the work that will be necessary. For ground waters used or usable as a source of drinking water—this will probably not apply, although we can never tell how ground waters get into the system from which we ultimately take our water—the draft directive requires that concentration of substances on the so-called grey list in the 1980 EC directive on ground water protection should not exceed the maximum admissible concentrations laid down in the 1980 directive on drinking water quality. The precise implications are not yet clear, because the draft does not specify at which point in groundwater below a landfill the limits must be observed.
The directive has important implications for the management of the site. I should dearly love a response either from the Bill's sponsors or from the Government Front Benchers who have made it clear that they back the Bill to the hilt, in words if not in terms of strength: they have dismally failed to persuade Conservative Members to stay.
I should like at least to know—not just in the context of our new clauses, but in the context of what the sponsors propose—how they think that the European draft directive will affect issues relating to the sealing of the site after it has completed its useful life, and what they consider to be its implications for dealing with the leachate problem. Those who harried me when I was speaking about important safety aspects for workers on the site do not appear to be prepared to make any useful comments about something that I thought might have already been drawn to their attention.
New clause 17 refers specifically to closure procedures, which are dealt with in the draft proposal. We are told that, before a closure, there must be a report on the condition of the site, together with proposals for monitoring and control of leachate and gas emissions. They would have to be submitted by the operators to the authorities. That is exactly what we are asking for in new

clause 17. I hope that the sponsors will say that, as this will appear in European Community law in the next couple of years, it would make a good deal of sense at least to accept new clause 17.
That is a positive note on which to end my speech. I am anxious not to take up too much time, although I assure the House that I could talk for at least another 15 minutes about the European Community proposal, because it is so important. I will not detain the House, because I know that other hon. Members are keen to speak; I hope that the sponsors are among them.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have listened closely to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He has spoken for well over an hour, and I understand that he has supported new clause 6.

Mr. Griffiths: No; I have been supporting new clause 17 in particular.

Mr. Jones: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was also supporting new clause 6.

Mr. Griffiths: No—new clause 5.

Mr. Jones: May I draw the hon. Gentleman out on new clause 6?

Mr. Griffiths: I have not supported it.

Mr. Jones: I am seeking some information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me. He seems to be distancing himself from new clause 6; let me read it to him:
Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.
The main point appears to be the "event" referred to at the end. That is the point on which I seek information. What event might come about? What are the quality objectives and who would set them? I urge the hon. Gentleman to go further into new clause 6 to help me to understand it before we enter upon serious debate on it.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) has been present for most of the debate. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber when I started my speech, when I did so I referred generally to all the new clauses. I said that I wanted to spend most of my time dealing with two issues. They were algae scum, which I dealt with briefly, and new clauses 5 and 17, on which I spoke at greater length. I did not want to speak to new clause 6 because it was dealt with at length by other hon. Members. The Official Report will contain a great deal about new clause 6.

7 am

Mr. Rogers: I understand the problems encountered by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). However, it is implicit in all that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has said that there is to be an EC directive on these issues. At the end of new clause 6 is the phrase:
in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.
The meaning of that is self-evident. As a result of Parliament's decisions, the future control of pollution will


rest with the European Community. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North should have been provided with the information that we have been able to obtain.
The chief executive of Cardiff city council has prepared a report and, out of common courtesy, that should have been given to the hon. Gentleman to enable him to check on the problems that have been mentioned. Page 7 of the report states:
Current leaching and landfill gas problems at the existing site need to be remedied under the provisions of draft landfill directives being proposed by the European Economic Community.
That is the basis of the new clause, which should be adopted by the promoters. It is a constructive amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North should recognise the growing role of the European Community in environmental matters, and that draft Commission proposals are likely to continue to have a major impact on the control and management of landfill sites, such as that at Ferry road.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Ian Grist: I deplore the fact that we are where we are in the debate. It underlines the difficulty of launching legislation such as the Bill under the private Bill procedure. Some hon. Members have sought to wreck a measure that is designed for the public good. The Bill is for the good of Cardiff, and of Wales as a whole, and, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, it is designed to shine in Europe as a whole. Some Opposition Members have deliberately sought to wreck the measure and their weasel words about the Bill carried little weight with most of us. They have also caused embarrassment to their hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth on his extraordinarily hard work over a long time in the interests of his constituents and his city. He has been tireless in his efforts—as tireless as some have been slipshod in their attacks on the work that he has represented. The amendments have been carelessly framed. They have been ignorant and destructive. At the very least they have been obstructive, and designed to be so. Everybody has known it. This public Bill—

Mr. Rowlands: It is not a public Bill.

Mr. Grist: All right—it is a private Bill that has been brought forward for the public good. It has Government support. It has been supported by a Labour-controlled county council, by most Labour councillors on Cardiff city council, and by the Liberal party. It is a generally accepted and widely welcomed measure. The Bill has given enormous publicity to south Wales and Cardiff in the media throughout the world. Against that background, windbaggery has threatened to damage the good name of Cardiff as well as the good name of Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: Does the hon. Gentleman support the motion that has been proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means?

Mr. Grist: I am discussing the motion.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman support it?

Mr. Grist: Most certainly. I would not dare to do otherwise when a motion is proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, he being an old acquaintance and friend.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I ask my hon. Friend, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether we are debating the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair, and there can be only one person in the Chair at any given moment. Surely the Chairman moved the motion merely as the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), just another Member of this place.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The motion was moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and it was in order for him to do so. The motion was, That the debate be now adjourned. It was a dilatory motion, and it is open for debate.

Mr. Grist: The actions that we have witnessed have been extremely short-sighted. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, the money which has been made available by the Bill for Cardiff bay is not available elsewhere. It is not as though the envious glances from Merthyr or wherever in the Rhymney valley will lead to the money being redistributed. Instead, it will return to the Treasury. That may be thought to be a smart move by certain people in south Wales, but I cannot imagine why.
Some Members who represent English constituencies would say, "Why is all this money going to Wales? Why is it going to Cardiff?" They would not necessarily be sorry to see us lose it. It is so short-sighted of Opposition Members to look a gift horse in the mouth. Have they not considered that the name of the proposed development has spread through the business world, through our European partners and further afield to north America and Japan? Yet they try to trip it up at this stage.
Do they believe that the development of the bay without the barrage would be half the animal that it would be with it? Are they not aware of the economic studies that have shown that for every £1 that is put in in the absence of the barrage will generate £3 of private money, whereas £7 will be generated with the barrage? Do they not understand and accept that form of arithmetic? It would be one of the best possible returns on the investment of public money. I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that it would be a much better investment than the urban aid moneys that we rightly direct to his constituency and the valley community generally. The valleys initiative is taking about £800 million. That is the answer to those who think that the Government have overlooked the valleys.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is making extremely cheap political points. He knows—[Interruption.] Unlike his hon. Friends who are cackling, at least he has been in his place to listen to the debate. He will have heard Members say that they support all aspects of the Bill, including investment for the industrial regeneration of the Cardiff docklands area. We do not deny the fact that the money is going to that area for development—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is making a very long intervention. He might catch my eye in due course, but will he now bring his intervention to a close?

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) referred to my constituency. He knows that we object only to the construction of a barrage. Some of us have yet to he convinced of the worth of investing hundreds of millions of pounds of Government money in the construction of the barrage when the results might be dubious.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Member for Rhondda must have overlooked or missed what I said about the difference in the financial returns with the barrage as opposed to without it. That point has been tested on several occasions with different economic possibilities, taking into account the higher interest rates and slower economic growth of the past two years. That consideration has revealed the tremendous return available from the waterside develop-ment. Indeed, it is so exciting and interesting because it is a waterside development, and one need only visit Swansea to see the value of a waterside development and what it can do to an area.
If the support of the hon. Member for Rhondda for the proposal is as pristine as he makes out, he must have been a little naive. The amendments and new clauses would have wrecked the powers of the Cardiff bay development corporation to take steps in certain circumstances. Powers of compulsory purchase and other powers that he supported earlier would have damaged the corporation's capacity to operate. He tried to interfere with the planning process that has been working extremely well between the corporation and the two planning authorities that the corporation covers.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) spoke for two hours and 48 minutes. His speech was intended to obstruct and damage the Bill, and that was not in the interests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The growth of Cardiff, in particular south Cardiff and the more deprived areas, much of which he and I represent, depends on the rebirth and growth of the derelict areas which grew up with the port in the last century and which have been looking for a role ever since.
Hon. Members who refer to the mud flats as a centre of beauty have not lived beside them. I am sure that they would not choose to do that. We can all see beauty—

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glandford and Scunthorpe): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthope (Mr. Morley) is very interested in birds, but I doubt whether he would choose to live by the mud flats unless he was particularly wedded to the bird scene.

Mr. Morley: I have been in the Chamber for most of the night, but I did not wish to interfere in matters that concerned Cardiff. However, there are local, national and international concerns about the ecological effects of the barrage. Does the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) accept that many local people in Cardiff appreciate the value of the mud flats and many business people are investing their money in the regeneration of Cardiff? Firms such as Tarmac Homes have argued that the mud flats

would not deter them from investing in the area or in the regeneration that everyone wants. The mud flats can be an integral part of that without the barrage.

Mr. Grist: Tarmac Homes is building homes on developments that are nowhere near the mud flats. The homes are near the Bute East dock and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth explained—although no one paid any attention to him—that the water in that dock is the kind of water that would be behind the barrage. It may not be the kind of water we would want to swim in or swallow, but it is perfectly good for fish, for birds and for water sports and boating, all of which take place on the Bute East dock. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) painted a picture of the nature of the water that was a travesty of the truth. He painted it in the most lurid colours for headline purposes in order to scare people and put them off. It was neither an objective nor an honest approach.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that one consequence of adjourning the debate at this stage will be that we shall be prevented from hearing more from the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is the most noted expert in the House on birdlife in this country. I had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands in his company. He made my visit much more instructive and memorable by taking me on a conducted tour of birdlife in the Falkland Islands. The House ought to hear more about the birdlife before it continues its debate on the Bill.

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend surprises me by expressing that interest. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe must have been a very engaging companion. I hope that we can look forward to a slide show in the Grand Committee Room to underline the point. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly is also a noted supporter of both bird and other forms of wildlife. We accept him on that basis. Therefore, we should have respected him more had he sought more clearly to express his opposition to the development along those lines. At the end of the day I should still have thought his opposition wrong, since the promoters have gone out of their way to try to find an answer—a most ingenious one at that—to the problem. They have approached the effect of the scheme on both fish and birdlife with the greatest seriousness.
Hon. Members may not be aware of the fact that the promoters have considered the amendments most carefully—in my view, with more care and seriousness than they deserve. When we continue the debate, they will find that the promoters are ready to accept many of the amendments. Had we proceeded, we might have found that that fact led to slightly faster progress through the Amendment Paper, though I accept that it is open to any hon. Member to jigger it up, if he or she wants to do so.
The concerns expressed in the amendments need to be aired and will be aired. I hope that Opposition Members will adopt a more constructive approach and will stop obstructing the scheme, thereby damaging the good name of Wales and Cardiff. They should say plainly why they dislike the proposal. They ought to stop scaring quite unnecessarily both their own and other people's constituents.

Mr. David Martin: Is not the most grievous lesson to be learned from all this the Labour party's divisions in Wales? As the Leader of the Opposition is a Welsh Member, does it not surprise my hon. Friend that he is not here to listen to and to contribute to the debate? Does it not show the lack of firm leadership for the good of Wales that my hon. Friend so eloquently provides?

Mr. Grist: I was seeking not to embarrass my right honourable neighbour in Cardiff and my other neighbours in south Wales. However, his absence underlines the manifest split in the Labour party that my hon. Friend has underlined, though it underlines itself. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has not given some sign of his support for the proposal. I am sure that my disappointment is shared in other quarters.
Locally, the Labour party has supported the proposal, which is all to its credit. It understood that this is an unparalleled opportunity for a rundown area in a great city to be improved. Cardiff was one of the greatest coal ports in the world at the turn of the century. However, during the past 30 or 40 years the area has declined and rotted. At last we have been given the chance to rebuild. It will be a modern, pretty and exciting development that will provide plenty of work. It is estimated that this development will result in the creation of about 30,000 jobs and in the building of about 6,000 houses, a quarter of which will be housing association and public authority dwellings. The Cardiff Bay development corporation has tried to involve the people of Tiger bay. It has tried to promote training and to involve people in the rebuilding of their area. It has given life back to the area by all sorts of means, such as painting railway bridges and cleaning up places. Involving local people has all too often been an uphill task.
What does the corporation get from the Opposition? It gets suspicion and a refusal to recognise that certain powers are required. It is sniffed at when it requests investment. What happens in the capital city is reflected in the valleys, and sends a beacon out to the whole of south Wales. Following a previous failed city centre develop-ment project in the 1960s, we now have a great concert hall in Cardiff. I defy Opposition Members not to be proud of St. David's hall. Performances there are broadcast frequently. It is one of the finest concert halls in the country. Music performed there is broadcast throughout Europe and is carried by the BBC World Service. The same will apply to this development if only hon. Members will take the blinkers off, stop scaring people, and contribute constructively to the debate.

Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can be a little kinder to my hon. Friends than the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist)—my neighbour—has been. At this stage, I speak more in sadness than in anger.
Some of my hon. Friends do not understand the danger in which they have placed the future of my constituents, the future of the city of Cardiff, and an imaginative future for south Wales. Some have shown a degree of sympathy. Some may have hoped to exercise their right of criticism to the full, but that in the end their attempts to prevent the Bill's progress would be voted down. In view of the kind way in which the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central has referred to these matters, I shall say no more about them.
However, in view of the numbers of Government Members who voted in this debate, Conservatives are not in a position to make remarks about divisions among Opposition Members. The absence of support for the Secretary of State for Wales is an indication of a sad lack of confidence in the very positive development that this Bill represents. I hope that all hon. Members will reflect on the dangers that will be created by the delay in the Bill's progress that is now proposed.
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central for his kind remarks. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have supported the Bill at all its stages. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West was born in Grangetown and appreciates more than most the precise effects that the barrage could have on the creation of a positive future for people in the area, including his own neighbours and friends of earlier days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who represents a valley constituency, and Members from Newport and Swansea do not see this opportunity for my constituency—indeed, for the city of Cardiff—as an alternative to development in their own areas. They see it not as a price that they have to pay, but as a positive development, in which they, too, should delight.
It is sad that we have not made more progress. The new clauses and amendments that we have considered were either unreasonable or were already covered by the Bill. I did not support the Bill without giving deep thought to its implications, and I think that my hon. Friends will accept that that has been my position. I ask other hon. Members deeply to consider their objections to the Bill and the way in which they have sought to use up much time by placing obstacles in its way, and allow it to proceed, for the benefit of my constituency and the wider area.
Opponents of the Bill have referred to the excitement about the Cardiff bay development. The development depends on the barrage to attract investment and secure the future of the city. Many of us have considered the type of city that Cardiff will become in the future. We do not want ribbon development until the city meets Newport, West on the one hand and Bridgend and Barry on the other, or goes north until it meets Caerphilly. For years, those on local authorities looked southwards to the land that was owned by the British docks board and sought to bring Cardiff back to its old heartlands and to bring back new life and communities to the south Cardiff area. That is the purpose of the Bill.
The development of the city has continued apace in recent years, not accidentally but because local authorities, and the people who represent the people of Cardiff on those local authorities, have sought redevelopment of the city. I am proud to have played a small part in the development of the city centure. At one time, people left south Wales to shop in Bristol and other places, but now people from the other side of the Bristol channel come to us.
The capital city of Wales is a place of which the people not only of Cardiff but of south Wales can be proud. I still believe that the barrage will help us to ensure its future.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this matter. I served with him on Cardiff city council for more years than we care to remember. We served on the central area committee and


the finance committee. Since the failure of the central area development, through the development of St. David's hall and of south Cardiff, there has been steady progress and a bipartisan approach by responsible members of the community. If the Bill were frustrated, it would be the greatest tragedy, a dire frustration and a dreadful betrayal of our city.

Mr. Michael: I agree. We have been fortunate in our representatives on local authorities. They sought to develop Cardiff airport and attract new investment to the area from Bosch and other firms. Those local authority representatives had the vision to see that the development of Cardiff bay and of the barrage would take the future of Cardiff into a new dimension that would not be available without it, as St. David's hall gave Cardiff a new cultural dimension and the development of the city centre changed Cardiff from a rundown older city into one that has been fittingly described as the youngest capital in Europe.
We know there that are firms waiting in the wings to see whether the barrage proposal goes through and, if so, to bring jobs and economic development to the city. That development will bring about a growing capital city in the heart of a resurgent economy in south Wales. It will bring my constituents positive developments in the environment by replacing the old and derelict heart of the city with new, living communities. It will bring housing to areas where it is desperately needed. It will bring jobs back to the deprived communities in the south of Cardiff. Having worked in those communities before election to the House, I have seen a good deal of the misery of unemployment which far too often has been concentrated in those areas of the city.
7.30 am
Before this and earlier debates, I circulated hon. Members with information on a number of occasions. Many right hon. and hon. Members are fed up hearing about the Cardiff bay development and are tempted to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and myself, "A plague on both your houses."
I do not seek division with colleagues within the city and certainly not with members of the same party, but I cannot stand back and see massive public investment for my constituency and my city being put at risk. I state again, lest any of my hon. Friends is in doubt, that if that public investment, which would bring after it private investment in the heart of the capital city of Wales, does not go ahead, that money will not go to other Welsh constituents but will go back to the Treasury and will be lost to Wales.
I tell my hon. Friends that I will not take the same approach to developments in their constituencies when the opportunity arises. I will seek to bring investment to my constituency, but I will also seek to do what I can to bring investment to the valleys of south Wales, to the rural areas of Gwent and Gwynedd, and to the communities in every part of Wales that need investment. I do not believe that stopping development in another constituency can possibly be for the benefit of my constituency. I invite my hon. Friends who have sought to take so much time on the Bill today to reflect on that and to consider whether they really want to stop such vital development for the city of Cardiff.
My constituents will ask why the investment and their future may be put at risk by the procedures of the House.
I think that on one thing at least we can all agree: that the procedures of the House in relation to private Bills need a drastic overhaul and need to be dragged into the 19th century, if not into the 20th century. That is no criticism of yourself, Mr. Speaker, or of the occupants of the Chair who have had to preside over the sitting. They have had to operate within the system, as I, as the sponsor of the Bill, and other hon. Members have had to operate within the system that currently applies. I plead with the House not to be slow in bringing about changes and more logical ways of dealing with these matters.
However, we have to deal with the procedures of the House as they stand. The promoters of the Bill had to go through the private Bill procedure in order to make the progress that we all wanted. The opponents came prepared to debate through the night and the following day. Their dedication to opposing the Bill, which I am sure is sincere, was strong enough for them to do that. I came prepared to debate through last night and today, and tomorrow night and the following day, if necessary, to complete consideration of the the Bill. I am sad that it appears that we will not now have that opportunity on this occasion, but there will be a future occasion.
I make a plea to all hon. Members to remember that this little Bill, which has been a great irritant to so many hon. Members, carries with it the key to the future for my constituency, my city and—as I say to other hon. Members —our city. I make that plea not just to those who represent Cardiff constituencies but to all who represent Welsh constituencies and, indeed, to English and Scottish Members who also have shown an interest in and support for the development.
It is a sad point to reach but I hope that what we have now is a temporary setback that may give people the opportunity to reflect on their opposition to the Bill and the barrage. I hope that the Bill will go ahead, and do so with the united support of the House. I am certain that it is the right measure for the city and the future, so I leave the House with that plea for support.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate immediately after my respected colleague and neighbour, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
This is the first time that I have spoken on a dilatory motion of this sort. I am not familiar with such a motion. I was surprised when the motion came; I thought that it had been moved by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), but Madam Deputy Chairman, who was in the Chair before you, Mr. Speaker, corrected me on that point and explained that it had been moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I was surprised at that because, earlier this morning, I had been looking through "Erskine May" and found, on page 333, that:
urthermore, the Speaker has power under Standing Order No. 34, if he believes that any dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, to decline to propose the question on it to the House".
It struck me as odd that the occupant of the Chair could put forward such a dilatory motion while seemingly having the power to exercise a veto over that motion. I could not immediately see how a separation of the functions could be achieved between the Chairman of Ways and Means proposing the motion, although not from the Chair but from the Treasury Bench—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may help. The Chairman of Ways and Means is in charge of private business and it is his decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising that decision.

Mr. Jones: Far be it from me, Sir. I would not want to criticise that and I hope that you will draw me to order immediately, if necessary. I only plead my lack of familiarity with this motion, which I have never debated before. I would have appreciated it if it had been in order —perhaps it would not have been—if the Chairman of Ways and Means could have explained why he brought the motion before the House. Perhaps he is allowed to say only as much as he did.
Whenever I try to debate a motion, I am always concerned about why we should adjourn. I feel a great frustration now, which I think is shared by other hon. Members, not least those from the capital city of Wales. There will be frustration in that city, and throughout south Wales, if it is thought that we are unnecessarily frustrating the progress of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I should like to know why it is felt that we should adjourn.
I have sat here patiently for almost the entire time since 7 pm last night, and have been wanting to speak on the Bill. However, I felt frustrated that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) so eloquently put it, we have been subjected to a filibuster since 7 pm last night. That filibuster has prevented me from speaking on the Bill, because I knew that, if I spoke needlessly, I would only contribute to that filibuster. I so wanted the Bill to progress that I resisted, almost entirely, the temptation and confined myself to one or two pertinent interventions to try to bring the debate to a much more appropriate stage.
This most regrettable and inappropriate filibuster should never have happened. We have been debating the Bill since 7 o'clock last night—about twelve and half hours. I seem to remember that the last debate on the second group of new clauses began at 9.53 pm. There were two closure motions during that debate, moved by different sides of the House. There was a will to make progress.
Unfortunately, the House has rules that are not always readily understood outside it. We believe that all our rules are good and try to observe them, but many people will think that there was something wrong when the first closure motion was carried by 97 votes to approximately 20, but we still could not make progress because we were a mere three votes short of the minimum required for a closure.

Mr. Rowlands: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. He is referring to the length of speeches. May I remind him that there are a number of interesting precedents? One was the four-hour speech made by the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the present Secretary of State for Wales, in a debate on the Mersey Passenger Transport Bill, a private Bill. It is a precedent that many hon. Members have followed.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has reminded me that, as this is a private Bill, there is no set rule that speeches have to be only 10 or 15 minutes. On occasion, something longer than 15 minutes can well be justified.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) spoke in the debate on a private Member's Bill, and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is a private Bill. The circumstances are different, and I thought it would be appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) to set the record straight.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that intervention, which sets the record straight. We can only reflect on the almost complete lack of progress that we have made, although all those hon. Members stayed up throughout the night for a twelve and a half hour debate. What have we succeeded in doing? We have disposed of one out of 25 groups of new clauses and amendments. We were only on the second group, although the debate began at seven minutes to 10 o'clock, and we still have not concluded them even though there were two closure motions.
We have already commented on one closure motion, when there was a slight technical hitch because it was three votes short of the minimum required to achieve a closure. There was an even more remarkable closure motion in the early hours of this morning, which, if I remember rightly, was moved by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who must have changed his mind more than once about wanting to make progress on this Bill, because he moved that motion and could get even fewer of his hon. Friends into the Lobby.

Mr. Ron Davies: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me directly, I think that it is appropriate that I explain to him precisely why I moved that motion in the early hours. It was our belief that the Secretary of State had failed to gather the support that he was seeking from the Government. We know that the Secretary of State wrote to every member of the Cabinet urging every Minister, junior Minister and Parliamentary Private Secretary to stay present through the night. We were aware that the Secretary of State had failed in that endeavour.
We knew from the previous vote on the closure that the supporters of the Bill did not have 100 Members present to achieve the closure. We believed that, during the later part of the night, there were not 40 members present to achieve a quorum in the event of a Division. Therefore, I moved the motion. My hon. Friends deliberately stayed out of the Lobby to ensure that we could identify precisely those members of the Government and the few Opposition Members who were supporting the measure, and test whether the House was quorate. There were just over 40 hon. Members, not quite 50, so we were nearly successful in our endeavour.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is a candid Member of this House, and at least he has frankly explained that the closure motion was nothing more than another procedural device to try to sabotage the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—if he could not filibuster it out, he would try to wreck it by finding out whether we were without a quorum. Again, that was not a positive contribution to the debate, despite some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues trying to claim that they were being positive.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is it not also true that that Division took up another 15 minutes and that although only 52 hon. Members took part in it, of whom my hon.
Friend and myself were numbers 51 and 52, that 15-minute Division was another method of stalling for time? It was purely a procedural play to spin out time.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
In response to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I advise the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend was not whipping the Bill. It is not his job to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about his letter?"] Anyone can write to anyone. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) wrote to me and to many other hon. Members to encourage me to stay in the House throughout the evening to support the Bill. I know full well that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also wrote to hon. Members, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who wrote a round robin to Cabinet members. Perhaps that was the original, because the hon. Gentleman wrote that letter in February, so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be guilty of copying him when trying to put the record straight.

Mr. Ian Taylor: May I assure my hon. Friend that I have been here all night, largely because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The Palace of Westminster is multi-roomed, and I have been here all night because of my hon. Friend's request for support for a Bill which I believe to be of great importance. That has nothing to do with other letters. It is simply due to the admirable work of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central and for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) to ensure that the Bill, which is so important to Cardiff, has a chance of going through.

Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I should like to make another point about the intervention of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I am sorry that he is no longer in his place—[nterruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West will doubtless pass on what I am saying to his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman added confusion to confusion because, having voted against a closure motion at about I am, he then proposed a closure motion between 3 and 4 am, and proceeded to vote against it. How many times can he stand on his head amid all the procedural devices that he tries to implement?

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, and I shall not now seek to make a speech in my own right. However, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales is now behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. He has not entered the Chamber during our debates on the Bill, but he is alive and well and able to issue a press release to the Press Association, criticising Labour Members and telling it exactly what has been happening here. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber.
Will the hon. Gentleman please go to see his right hon. Friend and the Ministers? We would have made a lot more progress if, just for once, Ministers could answer some of our questions, such as what is happening to the £900 million, and of about the environmental considerations. If they had answered a single question, we could have made some progress, and I say that in all sincerity. Can the hon. Gentleman please use his influence?

Mr. Jones: I do not need to go to see either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friends the Ministers in the interest of making progress on this Bill. Instead, I direct the charge back to the hon. Member for Wrexham, who made a not-short contribution during the past twelve and a half or 13 hours on the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had been much more succinct and to the point with his words, we could certainly have made progress. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) had a 20-minute slot immediately after the first closure motion that did not succeed, just after 1 am.
The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and certainly for Cardiff, West went on at some length. Naturally I would not wish to leave out the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who also spoke. Compared to some of his hon. Friends, he was a model of brevity. At one point, he confined one of his speeches to a mere one minute. If more of his hon. Friends had emulated the hon. Member for Rhondda, we could have made progress. I am glad that he has come back into the Chamber.
I also include in the catalogue the hon. Member for Caerphilly, who felt it necessary to speak at some length, as did several of his hon. Friends. In all fairness, I should not do as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) suggests and see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friends the Ministers in the Welsh Office. Instead, I should address my remarks to Opposition Members and the hon. Gentlemen who filibustered, spoke for far longer than necessary, repeated themselves time after time and dealt with the irrelevant and extraneous and all sorts of material, as well as material that floated down the river.
I must also include the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), whom I see standing behind me. He made a lengthy contribution to the debate last night. All those hon. Gentlemen will find that what they have done is a great disappointment in south Wales, not only in the capital city but much further afield in their constituencies. I am sure that their constituents will ask why they frustrated—or tried to frustrate—such a positive development and the best prospect for the whole of south Wales.
There certainly was a filibuster. On many occasions, the Chair had to try to bring Opposition Members to order and ask them to relate their remarks much more closely to the matters under debate. The last remonstrance was by Madam Deputy Speaker with the hon. Member for Bridgend towards the conclusion of his speech. She sought to bring him back to order. The Hansard record will show that, so wide of the mark were some of the speeches made, that, even with the gentle patience that the Chair traditionally displays, Madam Deputy Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers were moved to seek to bring Opposition Members to order.
I have looked at the timings involved. The hon. Member for Pontypridd might like to know that he contributed one hour 26 minutes to our proceedings. The hon. Member for Caerphilly took one hour and four minutes. The hon. Member for Wrexham took one hour and 49 minutes, but the record holder was the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. I wondered in the early hours of this morning whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to exceed the record held by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the longest speech, which he made in the last Parliament in the


fluoride debate. That was another all-night debate through which I sat on these Benches. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West tailed off after a total contribution of two hours and 48 minutes. He has spent 168 minutes out of the past 13 hours frustrating, filibustering and stopping the progress of this excellent and important Bill.
In the vote on the closure motion moved by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, only eight hon. Members voted against. That was the weight of the opposition. Eight hon. Members have kept the House up all night long. We have been at it for almost 13 hours. We had 25 groups of amendments to debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and we have reached only the second group. We have been stuck on the second group since 9.53 pm yesterday.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Having gone through the catechism of the time spent on the Bill over the night, does not my hon. Friend agree that, after investing so much time it might be as well to continue the job, let the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) put his questions, listen to the answers and try again to make progress on the Bill?

Mr. Jones: I am trying to explore my thoughts on that. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend because I, too, have a sense of frustration about not making progress tonight. As we have made the effort to sit all the way through the night debating the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and as I have not had the opportunity to hear why the Chairman of Ways and Means moved this dilatory motion —he may have good reasons which I do not readily understand having not debated such motions before—my inclination is to press on and reach Third Reading. That is what the capital city of Wales and the people of south Wales deserve.
Already, as I think Opposition Members have said, the Bill has spent too long going through the House. Granted, we must give it the best proper examination. We should not be guilty of leaving stones unturned and we should examine the Bill as well as possible. But there comes a practical reasonable limit, and we have exceeded that. My desire to see progress is shared by others. Unless I am persuaded otherwise, I am inclined to believe that we should carry on debating this morning, this afternoon and this evening, and throughout the night if necessary, so important do I think the Bill for my constituency. It is not directly within the development corporation's area, but the Bill will be very much to my constituency's advantage, as it is to the rest of the capital city of Wales and to all the other constituencies of south Wales. Instead, we are at this point now because eight hon. Members have chosen to hold us up and use every delaying tactic in the book.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth back in his place. He obviously had important business outside to attend to. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has handled the Bill. He has worked fantastically hard in mastering the Bill. He has a complete mastery of it and he fully understands it. If only some of his hon. Friends had listened to him closely they would have understood that he was able to reassure them fully on all their points, so deeply has he studied the matter.
I know that that is typical of the hard work that the hon. Gentleman does, not just since he has been in this place since 1987, but all those years previously when he served on Cardiff city council. He is a dedicated Labour politician from his fingertips to his boots. He cares more passionately and more sincerely about his party than most other Opposition Members. But at the same time he has the broadest common feeling for anything that need not be treated in a party political fashion. He has been the first to extend a hand in the interests of making progress for our capital city. He is very much a credit to his party and I am sure that all his hon. Friends wish to emulate him in that.
In conclusion, if it is not too late, I appeal to the eight Labour Members and a few others who have spent far too long delaying our proceedings by indulging in a filibuster since 7 o'clock last night, to raise their sights higher and to eschew the petty, the jealousies and the mean-minded things that can surely be the only reason for their attempt to frustrate this important Bill for the redevelopment of south Cardiff, the benefits of which will spread so far beyond. We have a tremendous opportunity in the House. Perhaps we could achieve that before the day is out. We clearly should achieve it. I appeal to Labour Members to put aside those petty things and let us join hands and go forward together.

Mr. Rogers: I join Conservative Members in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his diligence in pursuing the Bill. He has done remarkably well. I would not impute any motive to my hon. Friend other than his desire to achieve the best for his constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has also been motivated by his constituents' interests. It would be mean and petty-minded for any hon. Member for impute unworthy motives to my hon. Friend. He does not have a large majority so he cannot relax and do things without remembering his constituents' interests. He has served those interests well in the manner in which he has approached the Bill.
Things have gone wrong since we began discussing the motion to adjourn because of a polarisation of attitudes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) for saying that I spoke briefly during the night. I did not make a set speech during our 12 hours of deliberation. It is important for the hon. Gentleman to know that the motives of those of us who represent the valleys are just as sincere as those who represent Cardiff. We are not saying that we want the money spent not in Cardiff but in the valleys—

Mr. John M. Taylor (Vice-Chamberlain to Her Majesty's Household): Oh, yes you are.

8 am

Mr. Rogers: That is not true and the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it. The hon. Gentleman is worthy of other things than such casual remarks. If he had listened to the debate he would have heard things to the contrary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth knows that I would support the total expenditure of the money allocated in the Bill on the redevelopment of the docks. In common with the valleys, those docks have been desperately deprived of industrial development in the past. They are in desperate need of regeneration. We do not dispute that, but the fact is that £150 million of public


money will he spent on a barrage that will not add one single square foot of land available for industrial development, housing or leisure activities in the Cardiff bay area.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) made a mean speech and said that the barrage represented a multiplying factor in terms of the land development of Cardiff bay. I accept that that factor exists, but it will not benefit the local people, including the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The Cardiff Bay development corporation has already admitted in its report, however, that the projected land values in the area will multiply—that is the multiplying factor to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
There will be no return on the public investment in the area. Any profit accruing from that public investment will go to private companies. The corporation has already said that, once the barrage is built, projected land values will go up from £200 million to £1·5 billion. I do not believe that those enhanced land values will benefit the people of Cardiff, or the people of south Wales.
If the promoters came up with an amended scheme, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central could have his Swansea waterfront development. There were proposals for a mini-barrage and the development of a water landscape on the east side of the estuary. That would enhance any development, but, for some peculiar reason, some people say that the only waterfront that can be developed is that by the lagoon behind the barrage. Many of us do not accept that. We accept the sincere motives of others on the Bill and I wish that they would accept that we have similarly sincere motives.
The valleys communities have put a lot into development in the Cardiff area. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to the airport. I remember the history of the airport perhaps as well as the hon. Gentleman does. The reason why the airport took off —[Laughter]—was that it was situated in the old Glamorgan county council area. The main proponent of the airport was not Cardiff city council but Glamorgan county council. It cannot be claimed that the airport belongs to Cardiff alone.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has had his turn. He referred to developments in the area and he was right. I do not understand why such praise is not carried through into pride in the activities of the city council and South Glamorgan county council, which have done, and will continue to do, a good job in the interests of the area.
We do not oppose the Bill in a nihilistic way. If the promoters came up with an amended Bill that did not require a full barrage across the estuaries of the Ely and the Taff rivers at the point at which they enter the Bristol channel, I would give it my wholehearted support. The only item in the Bill that I oppose—all my hon. Friends seem to oppose it, too—is the full-scale barrage. We are certainly not against the development of the Cardiff docklands area and anyone who suggests that we are is being less than just. We have participated in the debate from a point of view just as sincere as that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West for the way in which he participated in the debate on his constituents' behalf.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I too have been here all night. I attended tonight's debates because I had listened carefully to previous debates about this imaginative proposal. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) the details of the proposals which are expected to bring about the rejuvenation of Cardiff and bring more jobs, housing and businesses and an improved environment in the city.
We eventually reached only the second group of new clauses out of a long list and did not even finish that. What this whole sorry episode has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that windbags are not confined to Islwyn. What has happened tonight is disgraceful. We have been treated to schoolboy tactics—to a debating society approach to these important matters. We have been treated to dead horses floating about and to blue-green algae. It has even been suggested that water treatment is about nothing more than gargling. Such discourses went on for hours of the debate—if "debate" is the right word.
I wonder whether Wales will be proud of what has happened tonight. It is clear that the Labour party does not have a clue what it wants for Wales. Were it not for a few Labour Members—notably the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—the Opposition would attract nothing but shame for what they have done in the face of the imaginative proposal that has been before the House.

Mr. Morgan: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak at the conclusion of our proceedings. I wanted to be offered the chance simply to say on my constituents' behalf that there will be many smiling faces in Cardiff, West this morning. There will also be an overwhelming sense of relief. The message that hon. Members—all of us with five o'clock shadows—should take from our proceedings tonight is that Bills such as this should try to achieve their development objectives without damaging other objectives.
I say this primarily to the other Cardiff Members who are here today. If we have derelict areas—which we do in Cardiff—we must find ways of developing them that do not damage the housing areas in my constituency and the others that lie on the plains near the Taff and the Ely. I hope that the barrage obsession that the development corporation inherited from the Secretary of State of 1979–87 will go out of the window, and another form of docklands development will be adopted that does not damage the houses in my constituency—

Mr. Grist: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain now how the Government intend


to react to the failure of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill to make progress during the night, after prolonged earlier consideration.
In view of the time spent on debating the first two new clauses, the large number of groups of amendments still to be debated and the limited remaining opportunities at this stage in the Session for the Bill to be considered as opposed private business, I wish to announce now that the Government will be introducing their own Bill to permit the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be consulting on its contents as soon as possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Leader of the House has not raised a point of order; he has made a statement.

Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to such appalling sleight of hand on the part of the Leader of the House. The truth is now out: this was always a Government Bill, masquerading under a false prospectus. The Serious Fraud Office would have intervened had it been a commercial matter.
The Leader of the House has revealed the truth behind the Bill. It has been rigged by the private Bill procedure. An honest version would have involved the Government's using the proper public Bill procedure from the beginning, and would have avoided the waste of time over four parliamentary Sessions in two Houses. That disgraceful waste of time can now be laid firmly at the door of this incompetent and dilatory Government.

Mr. MacGregor: As you have described what I said as a statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I can respond.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that was a statement, we now have the opportunity to ask questions of the Leader of the House. If it was a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that it was not a point of order for the Chair; it was a statement. I thinkit right to allow a brief period of questioning, which must be confined to that point.

Mr. MacGregor: In view of the ruling that you have just made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me make it clear that that is not the case. We should have much preferred the Bill to go through as a public Bill, which would have ensured that the Cardiff bay barrage procedures came in much more quickly. It was, however, a local issue initiated and supported by local interests, and we consider it entirely right for those interests to promote it through the private Bill procedure. Many other local developments have been handled in this way.
As I have said, there is now little opportunity for the Bill to make progress in the current Session. That is why we thought it right to make an announcement.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What my right hon. Friend has just announced will be warmly welcomed in the capital of Wales, and throughout south Wales. May I urge the Government to produce their legislation at the earliest possible opportunity so that there is as little further delay as

possible? The only reason the Bill has already been delayed so much is the obstructionist filibustering tactics of Labour Members.

Mr. Michael: The Leader of the House said that the Bill was initiated and supported by local interests. An enormous amount of time was spent on consultation and discussion and, at times, people leaned over backwards to satisfy some of the objectors. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the interests of the area and those of my constituents will be carefully considered in formulating the Bill that the Government intend to introduce? In the light of the spirit of the discussions over the past couple of years with local authorities, the development corporation and the Welsh Office, will the Government seek the consensus of those who wish to see Cardiff's future guaranteed? I hope that we shall see a positive development on the lines of the conclusion that I sought in the debate.

Mr. MacGregor: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for their contributions. I assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that all the work that has gone into the preparation of the private Bill and the debates on it will be valuable in developing the Government's Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consult and will, of course, take account of all that has gone before. He will hope to introduce his Bill as soon as possible.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend's announcement is welcome, especially by my hon. Friends who have worked so hard in the interests of the Bill, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) who in a former capacity was a candidate for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
Those of us who have been in the House all night to support the measure are frustrated about the lack of leadership in the Labour party. The Leader of the Opposition represents a Welsh seat, and it is absolutely absurd that he cannot instil some sense into his Welsh colleagues. He has not been here for the debate, has shown no leadership in the matter, and has given no indication of his interest as a Welsh Member. That has caused disreputable behaviour in the House. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to comment on that. I hope that we shall not see such behaviour when the Government introduce their Bill.

Mr. MacGregor: All of us who have been here through the night would have liked to see the Bill make progress and be accepted in its present form. That would have been greatly in the interests of people in Cardiff and south Wales, but, as it was not possible, we have decided on the course that I have announced. That will be greatly in the interests of most hon. Members and of the area.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Leader of the House remind his hon. Friends that we were debating a private Bill and that it would have been quite inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition or any Opposition Member to try to influence or dragoon hon. Members into voting against their wishes?
How long does the Leader of the House intend to consult about the preparation of the Bill? Will he undertake to consult such reputable bodies as the Royal


Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Rivers Authority and the new Countryside Council for Wales? Will he take seriously their environmental reservations?

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will make it clear how he intends to consult and he will, of course, consult widely.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Where does the announcement leave the environmental assessment procedure which can be applied to major planning developments? Will bodies such as the National Rivers Authority now get opportunities that they did not have under the private Bill procedure because they were not set up in a way that allowed them to object to or comment upon a private Bill? Will the slate be wiped completely clean in terms of participation by the House of Lords in the original Bill? Will the start be from scratch?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman had better await my right hon. Friend's announcement. We recently had to take a decision on the matter. My right hon. Friend has heard the hon. Gentleman's comments about consultation.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Wales, when he is engaged in framing the new Bill, to consider the alternative mini-barrage, which was proposed and discussed as part of the original thoughts of the development corporation some time ago? Will he take on board the statement of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), which was made in a disgraceful speech, criticising the Opposition for tabling so-called frivolous amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a post-mortem on the debate. I have asked the House to confine itself to questions on the statement made by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Rogers: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central said during an Adjournment debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House does not have responsibility for that speech.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said that the promoters were prepared to accept many of the constructive amendments that had been tabled by the Opposition. I ask the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Wales to take on board what the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central said, and to accept some of our constructive amendments in framing the Bill that he will bring to the House. Can the Leader of the House tell us when he will introduce the guillotine?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's final point does not arise.
Obviously, in the consultation my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will take account of what has been said during the progress of the Bill. That will include consideration at least of some of the amendments that might have been moved. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend. We shall introduce a Government Bill to achieve the main objective of the private Bill, which a few opponents have frustrated by preventing it from making progress.

Mr. Roger Gale: Those of us who have been voting on the Bill throughout the night and who have seen our endeavours to ensure that the Bill makes progress frustrated are gratified by my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that we have noticed throughout the night the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, who is a Welsh Member, and the lack of interest that he has taken in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is at least a gross discourtesy. It is an irrelevant and needless discourtesy.

Mr. Gale: I think that there are some in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who consider it a gross discourtesy that the Leader of the Opposition, who is a Welsh Member, has not been in the Chamber for at least part of the night.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should so blatantly disregard the advice that I offered him. He will have regard to the guidance that I have given.

Mr. Gale: If I am guilty of a grave discourtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise.
The Opposition have suggested that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a move to come out of a disguise to pick up what was a private Bill. May I say to my right hon. Friend that many of us who have heard the arguments advanced by the promoter of the Bill and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) have been impressed by those arguments? It is clear that the Government have been impressed by them and have taken them up. I hope that the Government's Bill, and the project, will make rapid progress.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We would have much preferred the private Bill to pass through the House, and that was the process on which we embarked many hours ago.

Mr. Morgan: We?

Mr. MacGregor: That the House embarked on—that we in the House embarked on during the past year. Many of us have been present throughout the proceedings to demonstrate our position on the private Bill. We would have much preferred it to go the way that I have outlined, but as that was not possible we have taken the action of which I am glad my hon. Friend approves.

Mr. Rowlands: May I seek clarification of the time scale for the introduction of the new Bill? It is already mid-April, and I should like to know whether it is intended to introduce the Bill during this Session.

Mr. MacGregor: Yes.

Dr. Marek: Is the Leader of the House aware that none of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench spoke throughout the debate? Is he further aware that it is the barrage part of the Bill that causes the most argument? I suspect that there is general agreement on both sides of the House about the overwhelming majority of the other measures in the Bill, which could be carried over without any problems. When the new Bill is framed, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult widely and meaningfully on the barrage, for that is causing the problem.

Mr. MacGregor: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, as I have already said, I am sure that he will be consulting.

Mr. Morley: Conservative Members' comments have shown what a sham and how corrupt is the private Bill procedure. At least the Government are being forced to show their hand. Having done that, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will comply fully with EC directives on conservation of important wetlands and SBA and potential SBA sites when they consider the issue?

Mr. MacGregor: I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the private Bill system, which provides an opportunity for opponents as part of a long-established procedure. However, it is equally right, where there is heavy public investment, for the Government to introduce their own Bill. I have already made it clear that we would much have preferred the Bill to proceed as a private measure.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is perfectly proper for hon. Members to exercise scrutiny over matters like the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill when important environmental issues are involved? It would have been a dereliction of duty if no amendments had been tabled and there had been no debates on the very important issues involved.
Now that the shabby conspiracy between the Secretary of State for Wales and the rest of the Cabinet has been revealed, it is time that the Leader of the House introduced the long-overdue changes to the private Bill procedure that the Government found convenient to delay because they have used that private Bill procedure as a way of pursuing Government policy. Today's events are the first honest developments that we have seen with regard to the private Bill procedure.

Mr. MacGregor: I reject the hon. Gentleman's final point. I have already made it clear that we would have preferred the Bill to have proceeded as a private Bill.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point about the right of hon. Members to scrutinise private Bills. However, it is clear that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has received long scrutiny in both Houses, and I have the details of that scrutiny before me. We hoped that the Bill would progress with greater speed, and if it had made faster progress during the night that would have saved prolonged further consideration.
I reject absolutely the claim that we are delaying the introduction of reforms to the private Bill procedure. I have already made an announcement to the House about that. Mr. Deputy Speaker has introduced changes to the Standing Orders that will take effect next Session, and I have made it clear that further announcements will be made shortly. We are pursuing reforms of the private Bill procedure.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why will not the Leader of the House admit that, throughout the night, as on previous occasions with regard to private Bills, the Government lost control? They have staggered from one crisis to another under John the ditherer. When the Leader of the House introduces the new private Bill procedure, will he bear in mind that we need not just some trimming at the edges but a system that allows private Bills to be introduced which are not tainted by the whatever party is in government, so that writs can be issued to Cabinet Ministers and PPSs and the private Bill procedure is what it says it is and does not involve Ministers shuffling into the Division Lobbies in their carpet slippers in the middle of the night to help the promoters who are making money hand over fist whenever private Bills are introduced?

Mr. MacGregor: Ignoring entirely the hon. Gentleman's final comments, let me say that all hon. Members are entitled to participate in votes on private Bills, and to some extent that happened during the night. I reject the hon. Gentleman's charge. We have concluded that it is right to introduce a Government Bill to promote the Cardiff bay barrage. It is clear from the response and voting in the House, as well as from the response in the local area, that this decision, taken by the Government in the light of events, will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement, but, when he prepares the Bill, will he bear in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)? Will he ensure that the title of the Bill is printed in very large letters? The hon. Gentleman spoke at length on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but only recently when we considered the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill that affects his own constituency he—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing not with that Bill but with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

British Technology Group Bill

Postponed proceeding on Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, resumed.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: We return from the glorious heights of Government incompetence over private Bills to the more mundane level of Government incompetence over the privatisation of the British Technology Group. I am delighted that the Minister is still with us.
I do not intend to prolong the debate. I have lost the enthusiasm for my speech that I had 13 hours ago. Suffice it to say that we remain implacably opposed to the privatisation of the British Technology Group, for the reasons that we outlined at great length on Second Reading and in Committee. We think that privatisation will damage an essential part of the support structure for technology transfer in this country. Therefore, I give the Minister notice that we shall oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): It is my pleasure to wind up the Third Reading debate that began over 13 hours ago, with some interruptions since then. Neither in our debates on Third Reading, nor in our debates on Report, nor in our long debates in Standing Committee did the Opposition succeed in sustaining their case. The fact is that the British Technology Group is a commercially viable operation, with no loans or debts outstanding to the Government. Its niche is to exploit inventions that potentially are commercially viable. We believe that its rightful and proper place is in the private sector.
I am sorry that, after a good night's sleep, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has not decided to change his mind. Perhaps he has realised at the last moment that we intend to bury the old National Enterprise Board. It is abolished by the Bill. Thereby we shall prevent any putative Labour Government from implementing any plan to resurrect that disastrous creation of the Wilson and Callaghan years.
We should now proceed to a vote on the Third Reading of this excellent Bill, which will give a bright, new commercial future to the British Technology Group.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I intend to submit for consideration by the House a package of regulations to uprate the financial limits for legal aid, increase the fees paid to solicitors and advocates for legal aid work and improve the administration of legal aid in Scotland.
The regulations will, first, uprate the limits of income below which legal aid is available free and ensure that the most vulnerable sections of our community continue to have that reassurance and protection. Secondly, the level of financial authority delegated to the profession in respect of legal aid advice and assistance is to be increased, with consequent benefits in terms of speed and efficiency for the profession, clients and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Thirdly, legal aid fees have been substantially increased, particularly fees for civil legal aid work.
The first two sets of regulations increase the income limits below which legal aid is available free of any contribution, so the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 and the Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 increase the lower disposable income limit for civil legal aid from £2,645 to £2,860 a year and increase the weekly disposable income above which a person is required to pay a contribution for legal advice and assistance from £64 to £70.
The latter regulations also prescribe the scale of contributions to be paid where weekly disposable income exceeds £70 but does not exceed £135. These proposed changes represent an increase of around 8·1 per cent., which matches the uprating level of income-related social security benefits. These increases maintain consistency with the corresponding eligibility limits in England and Wales. The regulations will ensure that those members of the public who are most in need will continue automatically to qualify for free legal aid and for free advice and assistance.
We are, not at present proposing to uprate the upper eligibility limits. The whole question of the provision of legal aid and the role of eligibility criteria is being addressed in the current review of legal aid. The first consultative paper is likely to be published shortly. We shall make certain that Scottish interests are fully consulted and that in the consideration of any proposals full account is taken of Scottish circumstances. Pending the outcome, the Government consider it appropriate to leave the upper eligibility limits unchanged. It is nevertheless important to ensure that the income threshold for free legal aid is uprated, and this is what is proposed.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Are we to understand that there will be a separate review of Scottish legal aid, conducted in Scotland at the instigation of the Scottish Office, or is Scotland to be included in a United Kingdom consideration of these matters?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am very glad to confirm that that is indeed the case. [Interruption.] Like


me, the hon. and learned Gentleman is an advocate, and he knows that it is very important that I should provide correct information. As for the courts and this House, we believe in presenting nothing but the truth.
The third set of regulations is the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1991 and its associate, the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Amendment Regulations 1991. These will substantially increase the financial authority delegated to solicitors to incur expenditure on legal advice and assistance without prior reference to the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Their purpose is to increase the financial limit from £60 to £80. This will give solicitors more discretion to proceed with their important and urgent work without having to wait for the board's formal clearance, and will be of benefit to solicitors, clients and the board. It will thereby speed up their service to their customers. All the foregoing proposals are intended to come into force on 30 April 1991.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now explain the purposes of the regulations that have been prayed against. The following regulations, which came into force on 1 April 1991, increase the level of fees payable to solicitors and advocates for legal aid work: in the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991; the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Amendment Regulations 1991; the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Amendment Regulations 1991; and the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees in Civil Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1991.
In combination, these regulations increase from 1 April 1991 the level of legal aid fees by the equivalent of 9 per cent. in expenditure terms. In the case of advocates, an across-the-board increase of 9 per cent. in fees for civil and criminal work has been awarded. On the solicitors' side, the detailed civil legal aid fees have been increased by an average of about 12 per cent. By bringing the main detailed fees for civil work carried out by solicitors up to the levels available for criminal work, the regulations conclude a significant step in the rationalisation of legal aid fee structures. This work started in 1988, and has proceeded with the co-operation of the Law Society. I am particularly pleased to have achieved this objective. The work on simplification and further rationalisation will continue.
The fees for criminal legal aid work and for legal advice and assistance have been increased by 8·5 per cent. The fee for assistance by way of representation has been increased by 16·5 per cent.—from £60 to £70. I am sure that all hon. Members will see that those increases are significant and should help in the further improvement of the Scottish legal aid service. I draw the attention of Scottish Members in particular to the fact that both the Faculty of Advocates for Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland have accepted the increases and have urged their implementa-tion as from 1 April.
Finally, I refer to the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991. These are subject to the negative resolution procedure and should come into operation on 22 April 1991. Their purpose is to provide clarification as to certain aspects of legal aid administration.
I have referred to the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 and other

proposals to revise legislation on legal aid in Scotland. They represent worthwhile improvements, and show our resolve to continue to maintain an effective legal aid service in Scotland and our willingness to respond to the changing needs of the service.

Mr. John Maxton: I welcome the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Chamber. We are delighted to see him here at this time of the morning for a debate on an important but relatively minor issue. He could not find the time to attend the debate on national testing, which is such a major issue in Scotland.
I am not surprised that the Minister received the consent of the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates to increase fees in line with or higher than the rate of inflation. It would have been surprising had they not given their full-hearted support. Many other workers are not receiving increases in line with inflation, and certainly not above it.
We welcome the uprating of the eligibility levels for legal aid, but the debate offers an opportunity to ask one or two questions about the failure to increase the upper levels of eligibility where a contribution must be made. The Lord Chancellor's working party is reviewing legal aid in the United Kingdom, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said. Separate legal aid regulations have always applied to Scotland because of the two different jurisdictions. I served on the Standing Committee that established the Scottish Legal Aid Board, quite separately from the rest of the United Kingdom. I am concerned that the regulations are being considered on a United Kingdom rather than a Scottish basis.
Concern is being expressed in Scotland because nobody knows who is on the Lord Chancellor's working party and because the legal profession in Scotland has not been consulted. The regulations appear to pre-empt decisions that have been taken by the working party. It is feared that there will be a major review of civil legal aid and that someone who is on a certain income, instead of having to pay a set amount, will have to pay between £2,000 or £3,000 towards the costs before applying for legal aid. That appears to be what the Lord Chancellor will do, and he is quoted in Law Society documents as saying exactly that.
Before legislation, or even a report from the Lord Chancellor's working party, regulations are being laid which, by refusing to uprate the upper levels of eligibility, appear to pre-empt that decision. There are questions which the Minister has to answer. The regulations mean that eligibility for legal aid will he reduced in Scotland. There will be people in Scotland who will no longer be eligible. We are entitled to know whether it is Government policy to reduce the number of people in Scotland who will be eligible for civil legal aid. If so, why? Is it simply an exercise to cut costs, or is it the first step towards changing the basis of legal aid?
What is the proportion of people in Scotland who are eligible for legal aid compared to the number in, say, 1979? The Law Society pointed out that that date was chosen not because of the general election in that year when the Government came into power, but simply because it represented a high point in regard to eligibility for legal aid.
I hope that the Minister can tell us exactly what Government policy is on legal aid. Will he promise that, instead of tinkering with the legal aid system he will try to find a means of making it more efficient and cheaper for ordinary members of the public to have recourse to legal assistance when they are in dispute over an issue rather than having to go through a costly and lengthy court procedure? Without that, the legal aid bills will continue to grow, and large numbers of ordinary people will not be able to go to the courts to settle genuine grievances. I hope that the Minister will make a statement on that.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I should begin by declaring an interest in that I am still, in a limited way, a practising member of the Faculty of Advocates and at least one set of regulations which is sought to be approved would have some financial benefit for those who practise as advocates in Scotland.
I should also declare that before being elected to the House I was a member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and before that of the Legal Aid Central Committee, and that since resigning from the Scottish Legal Aid Board upon election to the House I have from time to time been asked to provide professional opinions to it on matters of construction of either the principal Act or regulations made under it.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) pointed out, the legislation in Scotland is separate and distinct from that in England and Wales. Of course, to a large extent that springs from the separate legal tradition in Scotland in which there was established, I think as long ago as the 15th century, a system of legal assistance afforded by the legal profession to those who were impecunious.
In my judgment, the separate Scottish system justifies separate consideration in any review. For that reason, I am extremely disappointed to hear from the Minister that the review is being conducted on a United Kingdom basis. May we know how many persons, apart from the Lord Chancellor himself, with experience in the law of Scotland have been appointed to the review? May we know from what bodies and organisations in Scotland evidence is to be taken to ensure that proper conclusions are reached? Will evidence be sought from lay bodies as well as professional bodies, and will the interests of the consumer be taken into account?
Since the regulations are in part conditioned by the fact that the review is under way, the House should he given rather more detail about its terms, about those who are participating in it and about the extent to which the interests of those who either have recourse to legal aid or who are funded by it will be taken into account in Scotland.
The regulations do not expand on professional eligibility—in terms of the merits of a case—or financial eligibility. Do the regulations contain anything to remedy the problem that arose in the Granger case against the United Kingdom Government, about which I have written to the Minister? That case exposed that our procedure contained a defect in the arrangements for making legal aid available in some criminal trials for accused persons. That matter ultimately went to the European Court, and although some attempt has been made to meet the Court's criticism, it has not yet been enshrined in legislation. The

regulations might have proved the proper opportunity for that important change in the system of eligibility for legal aid to be made.
The failure to uprate the higher income limits means that during the period of the review and perhaps afterwards, depending on its conclusions, some people will not be eligible for legal aid who would have been if the higher income limits had been uprated in accordance with the percentage by which the lower income limits are uprated. That means that some people will be denied the opportunity of legal aid. That cannot be seen as anything other than a policy decision by the Government.
I hope that the Minister will spend a little time, even at about 8.50 am to explain why it was thought necessary to embark upon that policy change in advance of the review. There might be an argument for saying that we will have a review and then change the policy, but to change the policy in advance of the review seems to deny the effectiveness of the review.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer. As has been said, these are modest upratings. They do not address the continuing gap between the extent of fees for private, non-legal aid cases and legal aid cases. In Scotland, there has never been any difficulty in persuading either branch of the legal profession to accept instructions on the basis of a legal aid fee. But there is growing evidence to suggest that, for many solicitors, the cost of maintaining practices and the overheads that they face are likely to make taking on legal aid work increasingly unprofitable—to the extent that, for some of them at least, it may represent a loss. There must be a limit to the extent to which the solicitors' branch of the profession can be expected to sustain that loss. That is a matter that the review should certainly address, because the gap between legal aid fees and private fees is known to be increasing all the time.
For those who practise the law in Scotland, the regulations will represent a modest increase in the fees that they are entitled to charge in accordance with the rate of inflation. Clearly it is no one's interests that the regulations should fail to gain the approval of the House, and I would not seek to suggest that for a moment. However, the regulations raise more questions than they answer and, in due course, the Government will have to come to the House with a comprehensive view of the future of legal aid and the extent to which they believe that it is still to be regarded as demand-led.
There is more than a little evidence to suggest that there are some people in the Government who believe that legal aid should be the subject of financial capping. Whereas previously people who were eligible were entitled to access to legal aid, there may be cash limits so that the amount of legal aid available will inevitably be determined by the number of people who apply in any one year. That would be wholly contrary to the terms of the original legislation. It would drive a horse and cart through the right of every citizen to have recourse to the law to vindicate any legal rights which he or she may have. It would be a serious departure from what many people view as a fundamental liberty of the subject in the United Kingdom, and the Government will in due course have to address it.

Mr. James Wallace: I shall not detain the House, but I wish briefly to ask the Minister about a case involving the administration of legal aid—a


case in my constituency that has received considerable national prominence. It would certainly be improper to go into any question of the merits of the case of the alleged child abuse in Orkney, but the Minister is well aware that legal aid issues arise from it.
The House may be interested to know that two solicitors from local firms have been acting for two families each. The circumstances of this case have meant that they have taken telephone calls, sent out fax messages, and intimated notices of motions on behalf of each other's clients. I can confirm, from my own observations, that the solicitors involved have been working most hours of the day to pursue the interests of their clients.
The legal aid regulations do not neatly cover such circumstances, especially when it comes to feeing. The question that I ask the Minister to address—I have already put it to him in correspondence—is whether, with the fiat of the Secretary of State, and under the principal statute, the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, a simplified method of feeing can be provided for in this case. The solicitors were heavily engaged in instructing counsel and in preparing for a proof before the sheriff; if they had had to follow the detailed regulations of the legal aid provisions, they would probably have spent most of their time filling in time sheets relating to every telephone call taken, every fax sent and every letter read or dictated, which would have detracted from the main purpose of what I think that every hon. Member would accept was a case of considerable concern and seriousness.
The other matter will be partly covered by the regulations that we are debating which increase the level of fees. It is my understanding that in a case such as the one in Orkney the sheriff is entitled to allow an uplift of the fees of up to 50 per cent. I understand that that has been accepted by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. However, even if one accepted the increase proposed in the fees, and an uplift of 50 per cent. granted by the sheriff, that would still fall considerably short of what their counterparts would have got in England and Wales for undertaking similar work. Some explanation is required as to why that difference has been allowed to occur.
I should emphasise that it is certainly no part of the solicitors' concern that these cases should be their great profit-making work for the year. They seek fair remuneration and the effort that they have shown has been in the best traditions of the legal assistance provided by the Scottish legal profession, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, for centuries. They have shown dedication to their clients that is consistent with that tradition.
Finally, in correspondence, the Minister has certainly acknowledged and praised the dedication with which those solicitors have set about their work. Although they acknowledge and accept the Minister's praise for their dedication, I think that they would prefer, or would seek to have in addition, simplified procedures for dealing with the feeing of this case and slightly more generosity than would appear to be possible even under these regulations.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This has been a good debate, and I congratulate hon. Members on raising some extremely important and relevant questions.
In relation to the Orkney case, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) suggested, the Scottish Legal Aid Board is in a position to make an increase. We believe that the existing arrangements are adequate to meet the needs of the case. The board has said that, following consideration of Sheriff David Kelbie's interlocutor, it is prepared to allow a 50 per cent. increase in the fees for work concerned with the proceedings coming before the sheriff for which a legal aid certificate has been granted. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the solicitors involved will be advised accordingly if they have not already received that information. If they have not already done so, the lawyers involved should submit their accounts and fee notices to the Scottish Legal Aid Board for consideration so that all funds due to them can be paid as quickly as possible.
I should like to reflect on the points that have been made about simplified procedures and the discrepancy between that case and other comparable cases in Britain, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman who raised that matter as quickly as possible.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I had hoped to be here for the start of the debate but was delayed. I sincerely apologise to the Minister for that and thank him for giving way. Are there any means by which a decision of the Scottish Legal Aid Board can be challenged? I ask that on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Edward Rodgers, who was seriously injured in a car accident and whose application was turned down on the grounds of probabilis—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Probabilis causa litigandi.

Dr. Godman: Yes; one can see that I am not a lawyer—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Probable cause.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
My constituent was seriously injured in a traffic accident and, as far as I am concerned, has every cause to seek legal and financial compensation for his injuries, but he received what I can describe only as a casually worded missive from the chairman of the board to the effect that, because of "probable cause", he cannot receive legal aid. Is there any means by which Mr. Rodgers can appeal against such an unchivalrous and uncivilised decision?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Given that the hon. Gentleman has made that appeal to me, I shall look into the case and correspond with him about it. "Probable cause" means a legal case that is capable of being proved. The criterion to be applied by the Scottish Legal Aid Board to any application is not whether the board feels that the proposed action would be successful but whether, on an assessment, the case looks on paper as though the applicant has shown that he has a case that could be proved. I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Fife. North-East (Mr. Campbell), who has been a member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and whose questions I am anxious to answer.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I follow the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). When the Minister considers that matter, perhaps he would also turn his attention to the question


whether such a decision raises questions of an unreasonable exercise of statutory discretion and might therefore give rise to the possibility of judicial review.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been a member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and his concern on this issue carries some weight. I shall look into the points that he mentioned.
We have considered the terms of the court's judgment on the Granger case and, following consultations with the court authorities, arrangements have been made so that when the Appeal Court considers that the circumstances of a case require it, the court will adjourn the hearing and recommend that the decision to refuse legal aid should be reviewed by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. We consider that that provision will effectively ensure that cases similar to Granger do not arise in future.
I can reassure the House that legal aid is demand-led, and has increased enormously in recent years. In 1981–82, for example, it ran to £23 million in Scotland; by 1984, that had risen to £35 million and in 1989–90 it was £59 million. We have reason to believe that it will be about £64 million for 1990–91. The figure has therefore trebled in the past 10 years, which is an indication of the Government's good will on this issue.
We have increased the lower eligibility limit for civil legal aid and advice and assistance to ensure that those most in need will continue automatically to obtain free legal aid. We are currently reviewing the wider aspects of eligibility and a consultation paper will be issued in due course.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) asked about the upper limits. The present proposals will ensure that those most in need of legal aid will continue to get it free. The question of how legal aid should be provided in the future and the part to be played by any other form of eligibility test is being addressed by the review and will be resolved following consultation with interested bodies on the discussion paper.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked who will be on the working group. The group consists of officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Legal Aid Board with advice from the Department of Social Security and elsewhere, as appropriate. The Scottish Office and the Scottish Legal Aid Board are participating fully in the group on questions of equal application in Scotland.
In addition, Scottish consultations will be undertaken at appropriate stages to make certain that Scottish needs and circumstances are fully catered for before any proposed changes are implemented. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Cathcart would wish.
The first consultation paper is likely to be published soon and we shall make certain that Scottish interests are taken into account throughout. Pending the outcome of the review, the Government consider it appropriate to leave the upper income limits unchanged.

Mr. Wallace: What the Minister has just said is important. We need some clarification. Is the Minister telling the House that Scottish Office and Legal Aid Board officials are not full working members of the group but will merely be consulted for their opinions? Are they full working members of the group and, if so, how many will

there be compared with the number from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Legal Aid Board in England and Wales?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I said that they will be fully participating members of the group. There is no question about that. My exact words were that the Scottish Office and Scottish Legal Aid Board were participating fully in the group on questions of equal application to Scotland. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can be absolutely certain that anything relating to legal aid in Scotland will be fully and properly considered. I have not the slightest doubt that the Secretary of State and I will make absolutely certain of that. That would, indeed, be the wish of the hon. Gentleman.
Ultimately, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The review is considering bringing more flexibility into the criteria for legal aid, but of course we do not seek a contribution from those on income support.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I just answer the hon. Gentleman's point about narrowing the criteria?
The proportion of the population which may be eligible for legal aid at any time is not an appropriate measure of the performance of the system. We believe that the proposed uprating of the lower eligibility limits will continue for those most in need. One object of the review is to ensure that the resources that can be made available for legal aid are distributed reliably in accordance with need.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked what proportion of the population was eligible for legal aid. I shall have to look at the statistics as he gave particular dates. More people were assisted in 1989–90. Some 261,991 accounts for legal aid, advice and assistance were paid, which is approximately 40 per cent. more that were paid five years ago. Since 1980 annual provision of Government grant for legal aid has risen from £15 million to £55 million in 1989–90. The indications are that the totals for this year will be about £64 million, which is a huge increase.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked about the decline in civil legal aid—

Mr. Maxton: I sought to intervene earlier when the Minister said that the Lord Chancellor's review was ongoing and that the working party would produce reports. But the regulations pre-empt that review by keeping down the upper levels of eligibility. Essentially, the regulations do exactly what the Lord Chancellor has made it clear in one or two public statements that the review is about. What is the point of having a review if the Lord Chancellor has already made up his mind exactly what is going to happen with legal aid and intends to implement it? What is the point of consulting anyone?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I made it clear in my original remarks that, pending the outcome, the Government considered it appropriate to leave the upper eligibility limits unchanged. But none the less, it is important to ensure that income thresholds for free legal aid are uprated. That is what is proposed.
We consider that legal aid should go to those most in need and that will certainly continue to be the case. Legal aid will continue to be non cash-limited. I hope that the debate has been helpful in demonstrating the importance


we attach to the provision of legal aid in Scotland and our determination to make certain that the Scottish legal aid service is effective and is efficiently administered.
We remain committed to funding those cases where applicants qualify. I stress once again our continuing commitment to an efficient and effective legal aid system. We appreciate the need in all this for the continuing co-operation of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates for Scotland, as well as the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
This has been an extremely useful debate. There is one last point that I should mention before I sit down. Hon. Members have asked for more effectiveness. One particular matter that is being considered under the current review of legal aid is whether legal aid service can be more effectively delivered through franchising whereby a number of firms in an area contract with the legal aid board to provide legal aid services. There would be full consultation on the proposals emerging from the review. If the Opposition have other suggestions, we will look at them with great care.
I commend the regulations to the House—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was coming to the end of my remarks, but I shall give way.

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister, who shows his usual courtesy in these matters, even at this somewhat unusual hour.
I take the Minister back to the question of the constitution of the review. If I understand him correctly, he is telling us that there is a United Kingdom review, which appears to have been established at the instigation of the Lord Chancellor. The Scottish input to that review is reflected in representatives of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and of the Scottish Home Department. But the Minister's explanation revealed that the particular contribution of those two individuals is to questions that are raised regarding Scotland. It does not appear from what he said that those two individuals are participating in the United Kingdom review of the legal aid system. If that is true, does it not point up the fact that we should have two separate reviews: one for England and Wales and one for Scotland? That way we can all be assured that the Scottish interest will be properly taken into account.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not correct in his interpretation of what I

said. This is a United Kingdom review. The Scottish Office will be fully represented. I would not necessarily accept the figure that he gave; it may be more. Obviously, Scotland's interests will be properly and fully considered at every stage with appropriate consultations in Scotland to take fully into account the Scottish circumstances. We all appreciate that Scotland has a different legal system the needs of which need to be particularly taken into account and they will be.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Resolved,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

ANIMAL WELFARE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7214/90, relating to protection of animals during transport; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory welfare safeguards consistent with maintaining conditions given effect by the Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975, the Welfare of Poultry (Transport) Order 1988, section 40 of the Animal Health Act 1981 (c.22) and other related measures.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9908/90, relating to the third action programme on equal opportunities for men and women and the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 19th December 1990 and its Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 11 th March 1991 for a Council Resolution relating to the action programme; approves of the Government's support for the Programme's underlying principles; and endorses the Government's approach that any measures brought forward under the Programme must be considered on their merits taking account of their effect on national practices and policies, the extra burden likely to be placed on employers and the consequential impact on the level of employment.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Leasehold Reform

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick]

Mr. Terry Lewis: It is interesting that the subject of this debate is leasehold reform, because I am rather fortunate in that my London flat is within five minutes' walk of the House, so I have not been up all night waiting for this debate. That is one advantage of a leasehold in this area.
The Minister will be aware that the problem to which I wish to return is the 1,000-year lease with a low rent which is usually found in the north-west of England and nowhere else. I do not wish to bore the House again with this subject, but it will return and return until something is done to tidy up the leasehold reform legislation of 1967 and 1983.
On 8 March, we debated in the House a range of leasehold reform. On that occasion, the Minister's contribution showed that he had begun to recognise the now accepted leasehold problems in London and elsewhere and the distinct problem of long leases. I regret that on that occasion the Minister failed to give any commitment to new reform. He suggested recourse to the Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1927 and 1987 to deal with certain aspects of the problem, and I have no quarrel with that. However, since 8 March, events have shown that those statutes are capable of tackling only some of the minor issues that surround the problem. The main difficulties continue to exist and without a vigorous response from the House I am afraid that large-scale abuses will be committed by head leaseholders—on a greater scale than those abuses that I and other hon. Members have brought to the attention of successive Ministers.
Since 8 March, there have been a number of new developments that mainly involve the property companies that I named in my speech in March. The Minister will recall that I named 10 property companies that I believe are abusing the system. A couple of those firms have been undeterred in their activities, but I am glad to report that they have been rather panicky in their response to that March debate.
The perpetrators of the practices that the Minister condemned on 8 March are largely unrepentant, and I have no doubt that they will continue to practise their abuses. The latest and most serious development occurred on Friday. One of the companies that I named in March and of which I have had much experience in the past six years was seized by the milch cow principle of long leases to an extent that I previously thought impossible. It took 16 owner-occupiers to the county court to repossess their homes. I shall not go into the detail of the case, as it is still sub judice since the case was adjourned. I attended together with my colleague, Councillor Hazel Blears. She is a lawyer and is constantly surprised at the turn of events I have accounted in the past. She gave valuable support on Friday to people who were extremely worried.
Last Friday, I witnessed the worry that was caused by the actions of that sharp firm, and it came as a surprise to me. I should not have been surprised given my experience of such companies, but I understood the concern felt by those people. They bought their homes with the best will in the world. If they had bought those homes anywhere

south of Watford—for example, in Hemel Hempstead—they would have had no problems. However, someone has now decided that there is a way in which to make money from long leases, and because those people bought their homes in the north-west, they now face the serious threat of losing those homes.
I hope that the Minister will take into account the experience of those people. People cannot understand why they must ask for permission to put a greenhouse in their gardens—and pay for that permission. That happens only in the north-west, and the House must address that disparity sooner or later as it is a growing problem.
Another firm, local to me, is a newcomer to the use of long leases. I have been in correspondence with the principals of the firm since the debate in March. I refer to a property company, Valerie Hawksworth Ltd. of Farnworth.
Suppose that a property company buys, inherits, or by some other means obtains, a head lease and then decides that there is money to be made by exploiting parts of the lease of which local solicitors have never even advised their clients over the years because of the localised nature of its provisions and because, in terms of the property's reverting, a 1,000-year lease is meaningless. Take my own house, built in 1961; 1,000 years on, I should be very surprised if anything were left standing on the site but a pile of rubble. Local solicitors may therefore feel that it is not worth their while advising owner-occupiers and purchasers of long leases of the covenants that might eventually involve them in the scam to which we are referring.
Let us return to our friend Valerie Hawksworth. A very simple case brought the company to my attention. It involved somebody buying a house, being advised by a solicitor, signing the lease, getting a mortgage, moving in and developing the house, as we all do. Imagine the surprise of that owner-occupier when he received a notification from the property management company saying, "We have not given you permission to build the porch on the front of your house." Correspondence passed back and forth. The owner-occupier said, "It was part of the house when I bought it. I did not know anything about needing permission for a porch. My solicitor did not advise me. It has nothing to do with me. What is the problem?" Valerie Hawksworth said, "Fine; we can make this right, but it will cost you £51·75 for retrospective consent and registration administration charges." That is typical, and it is just one of the ways in which property management companies extract money from ordinary people.
Owner-occupiers are being exploited but—more seriously, in my view—the property companies are frustrating the will of Parliament by circumventing the 1987 Act, which makes it clear that leases can be bought by the owner-occupier as of right under the right-to-buy provisions. The suggested cost is 10 times the annual rent, which is less than £200 in respect of many houses in the category to which I am referring.
The Act says nothing about the on-costs other than ordinary legal charges. That is fine, but it is a deliberate attempt to frustrate the will of Parliament for someone to ask for £51·75 for a letter saying, "Yes. You can add the porch provided that you have planning consent and building regulations consent if that is necessary." It is for Parliament to deal with the matter. I hope that the Minister will take all these matters on board again today. I serve notice that the matter will not go away; there is


absolutely no chance of our allowing it to go away. Unless and until the problem is tackled vigorously by the Minister, we shall debate this matter again and again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Timothy Yeo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) mot of all on his good fortune in choosing a flat located close enough to the Palace to have allowed him to get a good night's sleep but also on his good fortune in having the chance to raise this important subject once again—soon after our debate last month on leasehold reform, which arose on a private Member's motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) and in which the hon. Gentleman took part.
During that debate, and again this morning, the hon. Gentleman concentrated on the problems associated with leasehold ownership of houses, particularly in the north-west—although I believe that the problem also arises in south Wales—and asked us to review the relevant legislation. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) is also extremely concerned about the matter. He has made his concern known to me in vigorous terms.

Mr. David Sumberg: I am here at this early hour simply because a number of my constituents are outraged about the matter. Some two weeks ago I called a meeting, and we formed a residents' association to deal with one of the companies mentioned by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). I do not hesitate to name it; he has already done so. Munny Ltd. is—here I use the privilege of the House—a disgraceful and appalling landlord. My hon. Friend must deal with the problem as a matter of urgency. My constituents are entitled to quiet, peaceful enjoyment of their property, but they are not getting it, because the law is inadequate. I do not think that those whom I represent—and others throughout the north-west—should have to put up with it any longer.

Mr. Yeo: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and hope that some of what I shall say will be of some comfort to him. I know how vigorously he champions and defends his constituents' interests.
Before addressing the specific issue raised by the hon. Member for Worsley, let me explain that the Government are not at present engaged in a major review of the leasehold system as a way of owning property, despite speculation in the press. As I said on 8 March, in many instances the leasehold system works perfectly well, with no cause for dissatisfaction on the part of either landlord or leaseholder. It certainly works satisfactorily in the case of commercial property. I acknowledge, however, that in some instances things have gone wrong with some residential properties, and that there are particular problems with the leasehold ownership of houses. As the hon. Member for Worsley pointed out, that is a separate issue from the difficulties in relation to blocks of flats, which we hope to address in another way. I join the hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South in condemning the way in which some ground landlords choose to conduct their business.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are engaged in developing a new way of owning property called commonhold. It is primarily intended to overcome the problems associated with flats. Today, however, I shall concentrate on the hon. Gentleman's main interest, the freehold reversion of houses.
The freeholders of many leasehold houses in the north-west, and indeed in other parts of the country, sell their freehold reversionary interests, sometimes in packages and sometimes at auction. That may be the commonest way in which the unscrupulous landlords to whom the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have referred become involved. There is nothing wrong with ground landlords selling their freehold interests, and I emphasise that new landlords do not require any additional rights or duties over and above those in the original lease or covenants. A lease is essentially a private contractual agreement that is freely entered into, and the respective rights and duties of both the ground landlord —or freeholder—and the leaseholder should be clearly set out in the terms of the lease. Leaseholders should be fully aware of the terms of the commitments that they are entering into when they first purchase their leases.
I am aware that some ground landlords choose to enforce conditions or exercise rights under the terms of a lease in a way that the previous landlord did not. That is what happens when an unscrupulous landlord acquires the freehold; he will start to do things that the leaseholder does not expect because they were not done by a previous, more benign, freeholder. I stress that the new landlord cannot enforce any rights or conditions that do not exist in the lease.
When we last debated the matter, hon. Members gave a number of examples, naming companies and individuals. They have done so again this morning. When I replied to the debate on 8 March, I deplored the examples quoted by hon. Members of some landlords seeking to enforce their obligations in an unpleasant or threatening manner. I am pleased to note that some landlords have been fined for harassing their tenants.
Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, most long leaseholders of houses already have the right to buy their freehold if they wish. That probably applies to all the houses in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Worsley and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South. That right exists whether or not the landlord wishes to sell, provided that the leaseholder satisfies certain conditions. In the long term, the purchase of the freehold may well offer the best solution to the kind of difficulty about which the hon. Member for Worsley spoke. The purchase of the freehold gives leaseholders a way of freeing themselves from the terms of their leases, especially where a new landlord is choosing to enforce covenants which the leaseholder no longer finds acceptable and which perhaps were not so vigorously enforced by the previous landlord. Most covenants disappear on the acquisition of the freehold.
The Leasehold Reform Act sets out the basis for determining the value of the freehold, but the actual price payable is open to negotiation between the landlord and leaseholder. There is no set formula, such as 10 or 15 times the annual ground rent, and it would be impractical to attempt to introduce such a formula, because it would take no account of the multiplicity of particular circumstances


that exist for each property or of how long a lease has to run. Generally speaking, the longer the lease the lower the price of the freehold.
If the price cannot be agreed by negotiation, either party may ask the leasehold valuation tribunal to determine the price, and there is then a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. Under the Leasehold Reform Act, leaseholders of houses are able to purchase the freehold of their properties at a price which is significantly less than full market value. In most cases it excludes any assessment, which would he usual under normal valuation procedures, of the leaseholder's interest in acquiring the freehold.
In areas of the country such as those represented by the hon. Member for Worsley and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South the cost of the freehold should be no more than a few hundred pounds, a sum which I hope would be within the reach of the vast majority of leaseholders. Leaseholders must also pay the landlord's reasonable costs arising out of the tenant's notice to purchase. Here we enter the more difficult waters of the attitude of some new freeholders. Those reasonable costs include solicitors' fees for the conveyancing and valuer's fees, but they should not include a handling charge or management fee. Enfranchisement is not a service provided by the landlord and for which he can charge, but a right enjoyed by the leaseholder under the Act. Any disputes about what is or is not reasonable for a landlord to include as his costs can be referred to the leasehold valuation tribunal.
We have no precise information about how many leaseholders have enfranchised under the Leasehold Reform Act, but all the signs are that substantial numbers of leaseholders have over the years taken advantage of its provisions. Despite what the hon. Member for Worsley and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South have said, we have no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the law as it applies to leasehold houses—certainly nothing on the scale of the complaints voiced by leaseholders of flats. I acknowledge that there is a special problem in that area, but I am glad to say that it is not universal.
From time to time, it has been suggested that in practice leaseholders are deterred from using the statutory procedure for resolving disputes over the terms of enfranchisement because they fear the risk of having to pay costs if the landlord then appeals to the Lands Tribunal.
Three years ago, my Department and the Welsh Office, because it is believed that the problem also exists in Wales, undertook an extensive consultation exercise to establish whether such allegations could be substantiated. The consultation yielded no hard evidence on the issue, and it was concluded that there were no grounds for amending the existing procedure. At the time, the Government promised to keep the matter under review and I reiterate that we will not hesitate to act if there is clear evidence of abuse or signs that the system is not working as it should.
For those leaseholders who do not wish to exercise their right to purchase the freehold—

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister take up the problem of enhancing on-costs through retrospective provision? If someone applies for the right to revert to freehold, he or she receives a letter asking for payment of a £25 handling charge or inspection fee. Then the man with the clipboard comes and ticks off all the improvements that the occupier

has made to the property over, perhaps, 20 years. If those improvements build up to about £2,000 or £3,000, it may be beyond the capacity of the owner to pay such a sum. That is the frustration that ensues.

Mr. Yeo: I acknowledge that that practice may exist. As I said on 8 March, much can be done if leaseholders are fully aware of their rights. To that end, my Department has produced a leaflet—it is freely available—that sets out the rights of leaseholders. I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said and ascertain whether there is anything specific that we can do to overcome the difficulty.
As I was saying, leaseholders, in addition to the contractual rights already referred to, have a number of statutory safeguards available under the Landlord and Tenant Acts relating to matters such as service charges, repairs and insurance, the latter having been a matter of some concern. Before 1987, those rights applied only to the leaseholders of flats, but under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 we significantly strengthened those rights and for the first time extended them to leaseholders of houses.
In particular, the 1987 Act extended the service charge protections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to the tenants and leaseholders of all dwellings, and gave leaseholders of houses new rights over insurance. While a court cannot take away the landlord's right to nominate an insurer where the lease provides for this, the leaseholder can challenge the choice of insurer if the cover available is unsatisfactory or the premiums payable are unreasonable. It is probably too early to be sure whether the 1987 Act is fully effective, but I hope that it is already a useful additional weapon on the side of the leaseholders in any dealings he has with the less scrupulous landlord.
Finally, it has also been suggested that leaseholders of houses should be freed from their obligations under the terms of a lease to seek the landlord's consent or permission to the carrying out of improvements to the property. Perhaps that is what the hon. Member for Worsley was looking for when he intervened. I think that that is more a matter of property law, which is one for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but I have difficulty in seeing why leaseholders should be relieved of obligations which they have freely entered into. As I said during the debate on 8 March, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 safeguards leaseholders against excessive charges for consent to alterations and extensions. I understand that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. I should add that the Law of Property Act 1925 gives the Lands Tribunal the power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants in certain circumstances.
As I explained at the beginning of my speech, the Government's current initiative is in respect of common-hold and is not concerned with altering the general operation of existing leasehold law or the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The only amendments to that Act which might arise in this context are ones which are strictly necessary for its satisfactory operation within a commonhold, and this is likely to be of limited interest in terms of the issues that we have been discussing this morning.
I recognise, however, that there may well be a continuing need to monitor the operation of both the Landlord and Tenant Acts and the Leasehold Reform Act to ascertain whether they need to be improved or amended, especially if commonhold is introduced. I have already promised, and I promise again, to consider again,


once we have dealt with the commonhold legislation, the issues raised by the hon. Member for Worsley with a view to seeing whether there is any justification for reviewing the operation of the Leasehold Reform Act to deal with

the problem of the ruthless or threatening freeholder. We have no intention of allowing such freeholders to get off the hook.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Ten o'clock.